We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The primary objective of this study was to determine whether Healthy Eating Index (HEI) and Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) scores were associated with incident metabolic syndrome.
Design:
This study is a secondary analysis of data from the Jackson Heart Study. HEI and AHEI scores were divided into quintiles and Cox proportional hazards regression models were analysed for 1864 African American adults free from metabolic syndrome at Exam 1 to examine the incidence of metabolic syndrome by quintile of dietary quality score.
Setting:
Hinds, Madison and Rankin counties, Mississippi, USA.
Participants:
African American adults, ages 21–94 years, 60·9 % female.
Results:
Over a mean follow-up time of 6·7 years, we observed 932 incident cases of metabolic syndrome. After adjusting for multiple covariates, a higher HEI score at Exam 1 was not associated with the risk of incident metabolic syndrome, except when looking at the trend analysis for the subgroup of adults with two metabolic syndrome components at Exam 1 (P-trend = 0·03). A higher AHEI score at Exam 1 was associated with the risk of incident metabolic syndrome (hazard ratio for those in the highest quintile compared to the lowest: 0·80 (95 % CI: 0·65, 0·99), P-trend = 0·03).
Conclusion:
These findings suggest that a dietary pattern that scores higher on the AHEI may help reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome, even for adults who already have two of the minimum of three components required for a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome.
Community stakeholders often participate in community research training curricula development. There is limited information describing how their input informs curricula. This paper describes input solicitation methods, input received, and examples of its integration.
Methods
From June 2014 to June 2016, community members (CMs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) guided curricula development tailored for CMs and CBOs, respectively. Engagement methods included a strategic planning retreat, surveys, a listening session, workgroup meetings, and community engagement studios. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey input. For other methods, input was extracted and compiled from facilitator notes.
Results
CMs (n=37) and CBOs (n=83) providing input included patients and caregivers and advocacy, community service, and faith-based organizations, respectively. The major feedback categories were training topic priorities, format (e.g., face-to-face vs. online), logistics (e.g., training frequency), and compensation (e.g., appropriateness). Input directly guided design of CBO and CM curricula (e.g., additional time devoted to specific topics based on feedback) or helped to finalize logistics.
Conclusions
Multiple quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to elicit input from community stakeholders to inform the development of community research training curricula. This input is essential for the development of training curricula that are culturally relevant and acceptable.
The United States is a dangerous place to live for racial/ethnic minority citizens. Research on this topic tends to deal primarily with the group with the highest level of violent activity, African Americans. However, recent research suggests that interpersonal violence represents a serious morbidity and mortality concern for other disadvantaged groups as well (Levine and Rosich, 1996). For instance, Martinez (1996) shows that urban Latinos have homicide rates that are considerably higher than the national average. Moreover, Yung and Hammond (1994) show that Native Americans also have violence rates that exceed their European counterparts. Typically, efforts to explain these higher levels of violence direct attention to group attributes or emphasize the social environment in which the group resides. While these approaches have generated some important findings, they are plagued by narrow conceptions of race and racial inequality and, thus, are limited in addressing disparate group patterns of violence.
In this chapter, we attempt to facilitate the reconceptualization process by first critically examining existing research and highlighting conceptual inadequacies. We then draw from stratification research and its explicit discussion of inequality and group outcomes to illustrate that the “effects” of race on violence are linked to very tangible macro-structural, normative, and interactional dynamics; ones sensitive to the local and historical dynamics associated with the social environment in which African Americans, and most race/ethnic minorities, tend to reside.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.