Background/objectives

There is controversy regarding the existence of a body mass index (BMI) mortality paradox in diabetes, whereby the optimal BMI category is higher than it is in non-diabetic persons. To explore possible pathways to a mortality paradox, we examined the relationship of BMI with physical and mental health status in diabetic and non-diabetic persons.

Subjects/methods

We examined adjusted SF-12 Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS-12 and MCS-12) scores by BMI (kg m(-2)) category (underweight, <20; normal weight, 20 to <25; overweight, 25 to <30; obese, 30 to <35; severely obese ⩾35) in adult diabetic and non-diabetic respondents to the 2000-2011 United States national Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (N=119 161). Adjustors were age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, health insurance, education, smoking, comorbidity, urbanicity, geographic region and survey year.

Results

In non-diabetic persons the adjusted mean PCS-12 score was highest (that is, most optimal) in the normal-weight category, whereas for diabetic persons the optimal adjusted mean PCS-12 score was in the overweight category (adjusted difference between non-diabetic and diabetic persons in the difference in PCS-12 means for overweight versus normal-weight category=0.8 points, 95% confidence interval; CI 0.1, 1.6; P=0.03). This paradoxical pattern was not evident for the MCS-12, and the adjusted difference between non-diabetic and diabetic persons in the difference in MCS-12 means for overweight versus obese persons was not significant (-0.3 points, 95% CI -0.9, 0.4; P=0.43). The findings were not significantly moderated by smoking status, cancer diagnosis or time period.

Conclusions

The optimal BMI category for physical health status (but not mental health status) was higher among diabetic than non-diabetic persons. The findings are consistent with a BMI physical health status paradox in diabetes and, in turn, a mortality paradox.

Background: Current interventions to enhance patient self-efficacy, a key mediator of health behavior, have limited primary care application. Objective: To explore the effectiveness of an office-based intervention for training resident physicians to use self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT). Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (N∈=∈64) at an academic medical center. Measurements: Resident use of SEE IT (a count of ten possible behaviors) was coded from audio recordings of the physician-patient portion of two standardized patient (SP) instructor training visits and two unannounced post-training SP visits, all involving common physical and mental health conditions and behavior change issues. One post-training SP visit involved health conditions similar to those experienced in training, while the other involved new conditions. Results: Experimental group residents demonstrated significantly greater use of SEE IT than controls, starting after the first training visit and sustained through the final post-training visit. The mean effect of the intervention was significant [adjusted incidence rate ratio for increased use of SEE IT∈=∈1.94 (95% confidence interval = 1.34, 2.79; p∈<∈0.001)]. There were no significant effects of resident gender, race/ethnicity, specialty, training level, or SP health conditions. Conclusions: SP instructors can teach resident physicians to apply SEE IT during SP office visits, and the effects extend to health conditions beyond those used for training. Future studies should explore the effects of the intervention on practicing physicians, physician use of SEE IT during actual patient visits, and its influence on patient health behaviors and outcomes.

Background: Cancer-related pain is common and under-treated. This article describes a study designed to test the effectiveness of a theory-driven, patient-centered coaching intervention to improve cancer pain processes and outcomes. Methods/Design: The Cancer Health Empowerment for Living without Pain (Ca-HELP) Study is an American Cancer Society sponsored randomized trial conducted in Sacramento, California. A total of 265 cancer patients with at least moderate pain severity (Worst Pain Numerical Analog Score >=4 out of 10) or pain-related impairment (Likert score >= 3 out of 5) were randomly assigned to receive tailored education and coaching (TEC) or educationally-enhanced usual care (EUC); 258 received at least one follow-up assessment. The TEC intervention is based on social-cognitive theory and consists of 6 components (assess, correct, teach, prepare, rehearse, portray). Both interventions were delivered over approximately 30 minutes just prior to a scheduled oncology visit. The majority of visits (56%) were audio-recorded for later communication coding. Follow-up data including outcomes related to pain severity and impairment, self-efficacy for pain control and for patient-physician communication, functional status and well-being, and anxiety were collected at 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Discussion: Building on social cognitive theory and pilot work, this study aims to test the hypothesis that a brief, tailored patient activation intervention will promote better cancer pain care and outcomes. Analyses will focus on the effects of the experimental intervention on pain severity and impairment (primary outcomes); self-efficacy and quality of life (secondary outcomes); and relationships among processes and outcomes of cancer pain care. If this model of coaching by lay health educators proves successful, it could potentially be implemented widely at modest cost. © 2009 Kravitz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.