Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHall-Lipsy, Elizabethen
dc.contributor.authorCorrales, Teri L.
dc.contributor.authorHall-Lipsy, Elizabeth
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-22T21:01:06Z
dc.date.available2016-06-22T21:01:06Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/614241
dc.descriptionClass of 2013 Abstracten
dc.description.abstractSpecific Aims: This study assessed the extent to which American Indians were involved in the research process (i.e. design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination) in relationship to funding sources and reported limitations in research interventions that addressed diabetes, as well as research method or design. Methods: Systematic searches of The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Web of Science, ERIC, and PsychINFO identified studies focused on type 2 diabetes in American Indians published between October 5, 2010 and April 30, 2012. Studies selected for inclusion were those that were interventional or programmatic in nature, used a comparison group for statistical analysis and reported patient level or patient related outcomes. Data were extracted and analyzed for study characteristics, reported limitations, funding sources, and extent to which the community was involved in the research process.       Main Results: A total of 6 studies were included. There was no difference between American Indian involvement in the research process with respect to funding sources and reported limitations (p = 0.17 and p = 0.23, respectively). The majority of studies were conducted in a clinic setting (33.3%) on tribal/sovereign land (66.7%). Study design was evenly split between randomized controlled trials and observational studies (50% for both). The most frequently reported intervention was combination/multimodal (50%).       Conclusion: American Indian involvement in the research process was not impacted by either funding sources or reported limitations.
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author.en
dc.subjectDiabetesen
dc.subjectNative Americansen
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen
dc.subject.meshDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2
dc.subject.meshIndians, North American
dc.titleSystematic Review of Type 2 Diabetes Interventions in Native Americans: An Emphasis on Reported Limitations, Funding Sources, and Community Involvement      en_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Reporten
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizonaen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.en
html.description.abstractSpecific Aims: This study assessed the extent to which American Indians were involved in the research process (i.e. design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination) in relationship to funding sources and reported limitations in research interventions that addressed diabetes, as well as research method or design. Methods: Systematic searches of The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Web of Science, ERIC, and PsychINFO identified studies focused on type 2 diabetes in American Indians published between October 5, 2010 and April 30, 2012. Studies selected for inclusion were those that were interventional or programmatic in nature, used a comparison group for statistical analysis and reported patient level or patient related outcomes. Data were extracted and analyzed for study characteristics, reported limitations, funding sources, and extent to which the community was involved in the research process.       Main Results: A total of 6 studies were included. There was no difference between American Indian involvement in the research process with respect to funding sources and reported limitations (p = 0.17 and p = 0.23, respectively). The majority of studies were conducted in a clinic setting (33.3%) on tribal/sovereign land (66.7%). Study design was evenly split between randomized controlled trials and observational studies (50% for both). The most frequently reported intervention was combination/multimodal (50%).       Conclusion: American Indian involvement in the research process was not impacted by either funding sources or reported limitations.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record