The concept of culture: A core issue in health disparities

Contemporary discourse contains numerous examples of use of the concept of culture by social and behavioral scientists. Simple reification, where the speaker makes culture into a thing capable of action exemplifies one usage in public discourse. Some quantitative social scientists attempt to characterize people’s cultural identities by means of a single categorical variable, which often “lumps” people into categories such as “Hispanic” or “Black” that in fact have numerous culturally bounded subcategories. Approaches that emphasize cultural process are preferable to those who attempt to categorize; more complex measures of acculturation help investigators to make convincing analyses of circumstances in which health disparities occur. Examples in which investigators make appropriate use of cultural characterizations demonstrate their utility in investigating health disparities in Haitian American women, injecting and noninjecting drug users, Hispanic youth, and adult Hispanics at risk of HIV infection. Focus on culture in the study of health disparities can identify entanglements between structural factors such as poverty and lack of education and cultural factors such as beliefs about health. Qualitative methods coupled with quantitative methods have great potential to improve investigators’ grasp of cultural nuance while capturing the distribution of qualitatively derived behaviors.     

Discussing options between patients and health care professionals in genetic diagnosis: ethical and legal criteria

The specific characteristics of genetic data lead to ethical-legal conflicts in the framework of genetic diagnosis. Several international organisations, including UNESCO and the Council of Europe, have enacted rules referring to the use of genetic information. This paper discusses possible legal and ethical criteria that could be used in genetic testing.     

A Spanish version of the Family Assessment Device

Introduction  

This paper presents the results of a study on the psychometric properties of an authorized Spanish version of the McMaster Family Assessment Device, a self-report measure of family functioning.     

Prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and relation to glycemic control therapies at baseline in the BARI 2D cohort

Abstract   We evaluated the associations between glycemic therapies and prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) at baseline among participants in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial on medical and revascularization therapies for coronary artery disease (CAD) and on insulin-sensitizing vs. insulin-providing treatments for diabetes. A total of 2,368 patients with type 2 diabetes and CAD was evaluated. DPN was defined as clinical examination score >2 using the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI). DPN odds ratios across different groups of glycemic therapy were evaluated by multiple logistic regression adjusted for multiple covariates including age, sex, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and diabetes duration. Fifty-one percent of BARI 2D subjects with valid baseline characteristics and MNSI scores had DPN. After adjusting for all variables, use of insulin was significantly associated with DPN (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.15–2.13). Patients on sulfonylurea (SU) or combination of SU/metformin (Met)/thiazolidinediones (TZD) had marginally higher rates of DPN than the Met/TZD group. This cross-sectional study in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes and CAD showed association of insulin use with higher DPN prevalence, independent of disease duration, glycemic control, and other characteristics. The causality between a glycemic control strategy and DPN cannot be evaluated in this cross-sectional study, but continued assessment of DPN and randomized therapies in BARI 2D trial may provide further explanations on the development of DPN.     

The genetic and epigenetic basis of ependymoma

Introduction  

Although ependymoma is the third most common pediatric brain tumor, we know little about the genetic/epigenetic basis of its initiation, maintenance, or progression. This is due in part to the heterogeneity of the disease, as well as the small sample size of the cohorts analyzed in most studies.