Background Family and friends often help chronically ill adults manage their conditions. Information about specific ways supporters help with disease management, and their experiences with and concerns about helping are lacking. Objectives Describe key roles and concerns of family members who support the health management of adults with chronic illness, and compare experiences of health supporters living in and outside of support recipients’ homes. Methods Data were obtained from a national internet survey of 1722 adults selected to represent the U.S. population. Detailed survey questions were completed by 703 respondents who reported providing regular disease-management help to at least one functionally-independent family member or friend with at least one of five chronic conditions (diabetes, heart failure, chronic lung disease, arthritis, depression). Results Current supporters assisted 834 chronically ill adults: 257 receiving in-home support and 577 receiving out-of-home support. Current supporters spent 2.1 hours/week on average helping their support recipient with health care, and 21.2% attended their recipient’s health care appointments. Many recipients discussed crucial concerns about medication side effects (47%) and trouble paying for medications (32%) with supporters. However, 41% of supporters reported insufficient information about recipients’ health conditions and regimen to be helpful. In-home supporters reported arguing more often with support recipients, but also received more information from recipients’ health care providers than out-of-home supporters. Conclusions Family and friends have significant potential to influence patients’ chronic illness self-management. Programs to engage chronically ill patients’ families to support self-management could provide information and skills targeting needs identified by supporters.

Autonomy support from main health supporters may contribute to better glycemic control by ameliorating the effects of diabetes distress. Interventions that reduce diabetes distress and enhance the autonomy supportiveness of informal supporters may be effective approaches to improving glycemic control.

Objective: Effective diabetes self-management can prevent long-term health complications but is often complex and difficult to achieve. Health care professionals' support for patients' autonomy (autonomy support) in managing their diabetes contributes to better diabetes self-care and glycemic control. Most adults with diabetes also receive self-management support from informal health supporters. Yet, the role of autonomy support from these informal health supporters has not been explored. We examined patients' perceived autonomy support from their main health supporter (family member or friend) in relation to their diabetes distress, self-efficacy, selfmonitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), medication adherence, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Methods: 326 Veterans with type 2 diabetes at high risk for complications, who identified a main health supporter, were surveyed using self-report measures of social support, diabetes distress, self-efficacy, and self-care. HbA1c and prescription fill data were extracted from VA electronic records for the 12-months before and after the survey. Linear regression and linear mixed models examined the associations of autonomy support with diabetes distress, self-efficacy, SMBG, medication adherence, and glycemic control, controlling for participant-supporter relationship characteristics and patient-factors.

This study used qualitative methods to investigate barriers to and facilitators of oral health care among 25 adult community mental health outpatients with serious mental illness (SMI). Participants completed 30- to 60-min, semi-structured interviews that were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis was used to characterize common themes. Results showed that lack of awareness of dental problems, poverty, and dental care access were key barriers to oral health care. When oral health care was accessed, fear of stigma was associated with missed opportunities to educate about the intersection of mental and oral health. Community mental health providers were viewed as trusted and important sources of advocacy and support for obtaining oral health care when needed. Oral health may be improved for persons with SMI by implementing education in points of frequent service contact, such as community mental health.

No abstract

The investigators used qualitative methods to examine perspectives of community mental health professionals on obesity management in adults with serious mental illness. Data from 5 focus groups were subjected to constant comparison analysis and grounded theory. Results showed that influences at individual, social, community, and societal levels impact development and maintenance of obesity. Mental health providers desired a collaborative relationship with providers of health promotion program staff. They also believed that frequent, group-based health promotion should include participation incentives for adults with SMI and should occur over durations of at least 6-months to achieve improved health outcomes for this population.

Consistent with genetic contingency theory, genetic attributions for schizophrenia, but not affective disorders, lead to greater desire for social distance via greater perceived dangerousness. Further, results suggest that genetic attributions decrease the likelihood of helping people with schizophrenia, but have no effect on the likelihood of helping people with affective disorders. These effects are partially accounted for by desired social distance from people with schizophrenia.

Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often receive self-management support from adult children, siblings or close friends residing outside of their home. However, the role of out-of-home support in patients' self-management and well-being is unclear. Patients (N=313) with HbA1c>7.5% were recruited from community primary care clinics for a mobile health intervention trial and identified an out-of-home informal support person, herein called a CarePartner; 38% also had an in-home supporter. We tested cross-sectional adjusted associations between CarePartner relationship characteristics and patients' self-management, diabetes distress, and HbA1c and whether having an in-home supporter modified these associations. Greater CarePartner closeness was associated with a greater odds of perfect medication adherence (AOR=1.19, p=.029), more fruit/vegetable intake (β=0.14, p=.018), and lower diabetes distress (β=−0.14, p=.012). More frequent CarePartner contact was associated with better HbA1c among patients with an in-home supporter but with worse HbA1c among patients without an in-home supporter (interaction β=−0.45, p=.005). Emotional closeness with a CarePartner may be important for supporting T2DM self-management and reducing diabetes distress. CarePartners may appropriately engage more frequently when patients with no in-home supporter have poorly controlled diabetes.