Who is NOT a Minority?? Promoting Physical Activity in Minority Populations

www.medscape.com

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/707582?src=mp&spon=42&uac=125132EZ

From American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine

Promoting Physical Activity in Minority Populations

Lisa Terre, PhD

Published: 08/27/2009

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

This review discusses evidence-based perspectives on promoting physical activity in minority populations. Future directions for inquiry and empirically driven public policy initiatives also are addressed.

Introduction

Over the past decade, considerable attention has focused on the nation's physical inactivity epidemic. Notwithstanding myriad public health mandates propped up by a welter of initiatives reminding Americans about exercise's broad-spectrum benefits and prompting them to "get active," too many remain sedentary.^[1,2] Regrettably, ethnic and cultural minorities disproportionately bear the brunt of this health-zapping lifestyle.^[3–11]
Powered by recognition of its threat-multiplying potential for underserved populations already burdened by health disparities, physical inactivity has become a high-value intervention target. Yet, despite some noteworthy strides, resetting sedentary lifestyles remains challenging.^{[5,9,11–17]}
To be sure, minority-focused research has only just begun to explore the complex dynamic of biopsychosocial factors that shape activity habits and crimp efforts to unwind them. Nevertheless, although many details remain sketchy, converging evidence increasingly high-lights the corrosive role of social disadvantage as one prime suspect at or near the epicenter of disproportionate minority risk.

Social Disadvantage as an Activity-relevant Risk Factor

Recent research has provided tantalizing clues to the tangled web of activity-relevant processes in which socioeconomic status (SES) is inextricably inter-twined at the biological, psychological, and social levels. For instance, poverty may set limits on potential activity trajectories by taking a toll on optimal physiological maturation and brain development, raising both near-and long-term risks for cascading adversities (eg, growth delays and cognitive problems) that can tamp down intellectual and self-regulatory capabilities.^[18–20]
Social disadvantage also profoundly affects psychological mediators of active lifestyles, magnifying risks for activity barriers such as negative attributional style (eg, feelings of low self-efficacy, diminished perceptions of control) and activity-hindering emotions (eg, depressed and/ or anxious mood).^[19,21–24] Minority girls, for example, have reported low exercise self-efficacy (including discouragement at initial signs of perceived exertion, high anxiety, and feelings of low self-esteem during activity training) that deters exercise participation.^[19,25] Other evidence similarly highlights the robust relationship between negative emotions (eg, depressed mood, perceived hopelessness) and health risk behaviors, especially among urban minority youth.^{[21,24,26,27]} Accordingly, attention to such psychological stumbling blocks may be crucial to fostering exercise readiness in underserved populations.^[11,19] Indeed, these preparatory steps toward action would seem well worth the effort considering the psychological and physical benefits that accrue to ethnic and cultural minorities who regularly participate in leisure-time activity.^{[6–8,19,28–31]}
At the sociocultural level, physical activity can be foiled by numerous SES-related processes that constrain educational opportunities, health literacy, and resource access, thereby limiting exposure to contexts in which habitual exercise is modeled and encouraged.^[20,21,24] For instance, attitudes about physical activity often are rooted in broader social and cultural traditions that may or may not coincide with professional health ecommendations. These commonsense models^[32,33] wield considerable leverage on activity preferences and practices.^{[4,6–8,11,30,32–38]}
To cite but one of many possible examples, acculturation has been associated with physical activity across diverse groups. As a case in point, Anglo-acculturated Latinas (ie, those acculturated toward the US mainstream) have reported being more physically active than their more traditional Mexican-acculturated counterparts.^[39] These findings parallel those based on other minority participants (eg, American-Indian, African-American) in demonstrating the influence of culturally driven schema on activity habits.^{[6–8,34,35]} Results such as these emphasize the importance of exploring exercise-relevant conceptualizations as a prelude to activity interventions.^{[4,6–8,11,30,34–39]}
As indicated above, social disadvantage limits social capital, one especially relevant form of which is activity-linked social support.^[21,23,24] That is to say, although loved ones' unconditional positive regard offers numerous benefits, its sheer noncontingency typically renders it suboptimal for promoting exercise. Indeed, significant others' generic support for beloved kin (regardless of lifestyle) often is counterproductive to healthful behavior change. It is this activity-specific encouragement that may be hampered by SES-related processes.^{[6–8,11,40]}
Along these lines, research^[40] has underscored the activity-enhancing advantages of social encouragement (ie, accentuating activity benefits) over social constraint (ie, emphasizing sedentariness hazards).^[11,40] Unfortunately, because underserved patients typically access health care on an emergent (versus preventive) basis, they may be most likely to receive lifestyle modification advice in the form of social constraint during crisis-oriented, teachable moments.^[1,2,11]
Even when effectively delivered, professional admonitions may be offset by pervasive, health-detrimental media messages. In response to media's well-documented adverse consequences (eg, from both observing media models of unhealthful habits and sitting motion-less during hours of passive viewing), professionals now urge parents to limit youngsters' screen time.^[41–44] Unfortunately, children from socially disadvantaged families may be especially vulnerable to harmful media influences.^[7]
In a vivid illustration conducted at preschools for low-income children, Robinson and colleagues^[45] recently examined the effects of fast-food branding on taste preferences. Results revealed that 3-to 5-year-old ethnically and culturally diverse children preferred food and drinks (including items such as carrots and milk) they believed were from McDonald's. Central to the point of the present discussion, however, this branding effect was moderated by the number of television sets at home and the frequency of McDonald's food consumption, reinforcing the covariation of risk behaviors that frequently has been observed throughout the health hazards literature.^{[6–8,21,26–29,34,35,46]}
Social disadvantage also undermines physical activity through ecological and environmental inputs such as exercisethwarting social policies and features of the built environment such as the lack of recreation facilities (eg, absence of walking trails and bike paths), neighborhood walkability (eg, few sidewalks, unattractive surroundings), and safety (eg, presence of stray dogs, high crime). In short, disadvantaged neighborhoods are unlikely to provide an optimal context for infusing habitual activity into daily life.^{[4,6–8,11,19,30,34–38,47–49]]}

Promoting Active Lifestyles

Considering activity's biopsychosocial influences, the fight against sedentary lifestyles must engage on many fronts simultaneously,^{[6–9,11,15,50]} reaching beyond traditional providers and medical settings to include indigenous mediators and venues tailored to ethnic and cultural considerations.^{[5,9,12–17,28,29,46,51,52]} Despite the seemingly fitful progress to date, evidence of incremental victories are beginning to dapple the scientific landscape. Leveraging these stepwise achievements into sustainable lifestyle gains will be challenging but, given the potential benefits, are well worth the effort.

References

1. Terre L. Exercise for primary care. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2008;2:290–292.
2. Terre L, Poston W, Foreyt J. Overview and the future of obesity treatment. In: Goldstein D, ed. The Management of Eating Disorders and Obesity. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2005;161–179.
3. Albright C, Pruitt L, Castro C, et al. Modifying physical activity in a multiethnic sample of low-income women: one-year results from the IMPACT (Increasing Motivation for Physical ACTivity) Project. Ann Behav Med. 2005;30:191–200.
4. Bush C, Shadston P, McKay S, et al. Park-based obesity intervention program for inner-city minority children. J Pediatr. 2007;15:513–517.
5. Frierson G, Williams D, Dunsiger S, et al. Recruitment of a racially and ethnically diverse sample into a physical activity efficacy trial. Clin Trials. 2008;5:504–516.
6. Kumanyika S. Environmental influences on childhood obesity: ethnic and cultural influences in context. Physiol Behav. 2008;94:61–70.
7. Kumanyika S, Grier S. Targeting interventions for ethnic minority and low-income populations. Future Child. 2006;16:187–207.
8. Kumanyika S, Obarzanek E, Stettler N, et al. Population-based prevention of obesity: the need for comprehensive promotion of healthful eating, physical activity, and energy balance. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Interdisciplinary Committee for Prevention (formerly the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science). Circulation. 2008;118:428–464.
9. Pekmezi D, Jennings E. Interventions to promote physical activity among African Americans. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2009;3(3):00–00.
10. Resnick B, Luisi D, Vogel A. Testing the Senior Exercise Self-Efficacy Project (SESEP) for use with urban dwelling minority older adults. Public Health Nurs. 2008;25:221–234.
11. Schrop S, Pendleton B, McCord G, et al. The medically underserved: who is likely to exercise and why? J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17:276–289.
12. Dornelas E, Stepnowski R, Fischer E, et al. Urban ethnic minority women's attendance at health clinic vs. church based exercise programs. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2007;22:129–136.
13. Eakin E, Bull S, Riley K, et al. Recruitment and retention of Latinos in a primary care-based physical activity and diet trial: the Resources for Health study. Health Ed Res. 2007;22:361–371.
14. Tandon S, Phillips K, Bordeaux B, et al. A vision for progress in community health partnerships. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2007;1:11–30.
15. Yancey A. Building capacity to prevent and control chronic disease in underserved communities: expanding the wisdom of WISEWOMAN in intervening at the environ-mental level. J Women Health. 2004;13:644–649.
16. Yang J, Kagawa-Singer M. Increasing access to care for cultural and linguistic minorities: ethnicity-specific health care organizations and infrastructure. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18:532–549.
17. Zoellner J, Connell C, Santell R, et al. Fit for life steps: results of a community walking intervention in the rural Mississippi Delta. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2007; Spring. pchp.press. jhu. edu. Accessed October 20, 2008.
18. Genel M, McCaffree M, Hendricks K, et al. A national agenda for America's children and adolescents in 2008: recommendations from the 15th Annual Public Policy Plenary Symposium, Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, May 3, 2008. Pediatrics. 2008;122:843–849.
19. Lemmon C, Ludwig D, Howe C, et al. Correlates of adherence to a physical activity program in young African-American girls. Obesity. 2007;15:695–703.
20. Terre L. Children's nutritional health: running on empty? Am J Lifestyle Med. 2009:2; 115–118.
21. Gallo L, Matthews K. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: do negative emotions play a role? Psychol Bull. 2003;129:10–51.
22. Hill-Briggs F, Gary T, Yen H, et al. Association of social problem solving with glycemic control in a sample of urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes. J Behav Med. 2006;29:69–78.
23. Marquez D, McAuley E. Social cognitive correlates of leisure time physical activity among Latinos. J Behav Med. 2006;29:281–289.
24. Poulton R, Caspi A. Commentary: how does socioeconomic disadvantage during child-hood damage health in adulthood? Testing psychosocial pathways. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34:344–345.
25. Robbins L, Pender N, Ronis D, et al. Physical activity, self-efficacy, and perceived exertion among adolescents. Res Nurs Health. 2004;27:435–446.
26. DiClemente R, Wingood G, Lang D, et al. Adverse health consequences that co-occur with depression: a longitudinal study of black adolescent females. Pediatrics. 2005;116:78–81.
27. Valadez-Meltzer A, Silber T, Meltzer A, et al. Will I be alive in 2005? Adolescent level of involvement in risk behaviors and belief in near-future death. Pediatrics. 2005;116:24–31.
28. Goldfinger J, Arniella G, Wylie-Rosett J, et al. Project HEAL: peer education leads to weight loss in Harlem. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008;19:180–192.
29. Horowitz C, Goldfinger J, Muller S, et al. A model for using community-based participatory research to address the diabetes epidemic in East Harlem. Mount Sinai J Med. 2008;75:13–21.
30. Miller D, Gilman R, Martens M. Wellness promotion in the schools: enhancing students' mental and physical health. Psychol Sch. 2008;45:5–15.
31. Wise L, Adams-Campbell L, Palmer J, et al. Leisure time physical activity in relation to depressive symptoms in the Black Women's Health Study. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:68–76.
32. Levanthal H, Levanthal E, Cameron L. Representations, procedures, and affect in illness self-regulation: a perceptual-cognitive model. In: Baum A, Revenson T, Singer J, eds. Handbook of Health Psychology. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum; 2001:19–47.
33. Levanthal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense representation of illness danger. In: Rachman S, ed. Contributions to Medical Psychology. New York, NY: Pergamon; 1980:7–30.
34. Adams A, Harvey H, Brown D. Constructs of health and environment inform child obesity prevention in American Indian communities. Obesity. 2008;16:311–317.
35. Adams A, Quinn R, Prince R. Low recognition of childhood overweight and disease risk among Native-American caregivers. Obes Res. 2005;12:146–152.
36. Hekler E, Lambert J, Leventhal E, et al. Commonsense illness beliefs, adherence behaviors, and hypertension control among African Americans. J Behav Med. 2008;31:391–400.
37. Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson M, Page P, et al. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics. 2006;117:417–424.
38. McDonald N. The effect of objectively measured crime on walking in minority adults. Am J Health Promot. 2008;22:433–436.
39. Pichon L, Arredondo E, Roesch S, et al. The relation of acculturation to Latinas' perceived neighborhood safety and physical activity: a structural equation analysis. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34:295–303.
40. Gabriele J, Walker M, Gill D, et al. Differentiated roles of social encouragement and social constraint on physical activity behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29:210–215.
41. Connor S. Food-related advertising on preschool television: building brand recognition in young viewers. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1478–1485.
42. Escobar-Chaves S, Anderson C. Media and risky behaviors. Future Child.2008;18:147–180.
43. Evans W. Social marketing campaigns and children's media use. Future Child. 2008;18:181–203.
44. Wilcox B, Kunkel D, Cantor J, et al. Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children. www.apa.org. Retrieved November 2008.
45. Robinson T, Borzekowski D, Matheson D, et al. Effects of fast food branding on young children's taste preferences. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:792–797.
46. Collins J. Addressing racial and ethnic disparities: lessons from the REACH 2010 communities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17:1–5.
47. Sallis J, King A, Sirard J, et al. Perceived environmental predictors of physical activity over 6 months in adults: Activity Counseling Trial. Health Psychol. 2007;26:701–709.
48. Sloane D, Nascimento L, Flynn G, et al. Assessing resource environments to tar-get prevention interventions in community chronic disease control. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17:146–158.
49. Stafford M, Cummins S, Ellaway E, et al. Pathways to obesity: identifying local, modifiable determinants of physical activity and diet. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1882–1897.
50. Fort J, McClellan L. REACH-Meharry community-campus partnership: developing culturally competent health care providers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17:78–87.
51. Farmer D, Jackson S, Camacho F, et al. Attitudes of African American and low socioeconomic status white women toward medical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18:85–99.
52. Winett R, Anderson E, Wojcik J, et al. Guide to health: nutrition and physical activity out-comes of a group-randomized trial of an internet-based intervention in churches. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33:251–261.

Authors and Disclosures

Lisa Terre, PhD

From the Department of Psychology, University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Address correspondence to
Lisa Terre, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri–Kansas City, 4825 Troost Building, Suite 123, Kansas City, MO 64110-2499; e-mail: terrel@umkc.edu.
Am J Lifestyle Med. 2009;3(3):195-197. © 2009 Sage Publications, Inc.

_:

Animal byproducts in common medicines and over-the-counter preparations

Why doctors should inform their patients where the medicines comes from

My many readers will know - from my many blogs (one Yahoo! 360 blog, recently closed by Yahoo! - had 1.3 million readers) that (a) I am NOT A FAN OF NOMINAL RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION - (b) nor am I supportive of arbitrary defections of any kind to lower moral standards.

An infrequently recurring question on vegetarian medical discussion lists in including those on topical medical concerns, where some clinicians and medical trained professionals are signed up, is animal ingredients in common medications. Some great servants of the vegetarians community like the Michaels - Dr. Michael Greger and Dr. Michael Klaper, have tried to help us steer clear of common over-the-counter preparations with animal ingredients, as have some pro-animal organizations (not only PETA, but others, too). You'll noted that, to the discredit of both vegetarians and presumptive vegetarians who are clinicians who ought to know the products AND our ethical and moral scruples about animal byproducts, many clinicians - including nominal Hindus, nominal Jains, nominal Adventists, and others - have failed to engage in pro-active HELP and service to the vegetarian communities, though they MAY be uniquely qualified to do so. Is it laziness or a misshapen sense that their NEW 'higher calling' is professional loyalty, a a jingoistic chauvinism to their professional colleagues, even when the profession is doing the wrong thing.

Let's get one thing clear: NO product of ANY kind should have ANY kind of animal ingredient or byproduct in it.

Therefore, no MEDICAL product of ANY kind should have ANY kind of animal ingredient or byproduct in it.

There's wide-ranging ignorance of this moral truth, but medical and health professionals who are NOT ignorant have even less to say in their defense when they err than have those whose moral laziness merely REFLECTS the social backgrounds from which they come.

In a column in the New York Times this week, Randy Cohen fields a question from an anaesthetist.

Should the doctor ask a devoutly religious patient whether he minds that his anticoagulant (heparin) is derived from pigs?

In his reply, Randy Cohen suggests that the doctrine of informed consent requires the doctor to consider the non-medical preferences of the patient and to make sure Muslims, Jews, and vegetarians (like us) know where medicine to be used in their treatment is coming from.

That's a second best (or third best, or not good) standard at best, but that's what Randy Cohen offers. It's a standard that's been around, has been widely accepted by medical ethicists and others in our culture, and seems to work with little additional thought. After all, clinicians should have a laboratory 'sense of things' that would include routinely understanding the chemical nature of stuffs, stuffs used in clinical treatment.

Are you with us so far? Good!

So Randy Cohen, in his New York Times article a week or so ago, suggests that the doctor's role includes a duty to provide whatever information patients need in order to make decisions about, decide, and effectively manage or control their care. But some doubt that it is a doctor's responsibilityto take into account what they call "preferences" (because they don't clearly understand the moral status of animals d they dismissive discount or deny their personhood.

These deniers claim that the doctors' role is too greatly extended.

Dominic Wilkinson of the University of Oxford, on August 24, 2009, posed this scenario:

"Imagine a vegan who takes particular exception to drugs that have been tested in higher order primates. Is the doctor expected to ask about all possible preferences and provide corresponding advice about treatments that conform to these? If so, this seems to be unreasonably demanding."

Briton Wikinson goes on to distinguish what he terms "the normative force of different claims about information-giving" (in other words, different nuances have different moral claims and intellectual legitimacy):

"There is a difference between

1. what would be good for the doctor to do, and
2. what we should expect the doctor to do, and
3. what we should sanction the doctor if they don't do?

If your doctor knows that you are a devout religious adherent, and that you may have an objection to a medical product that they know contains animal products, the doctor should inform you that the drug she is about to prescribe is derived from pigs. It would be good for them do so (level 1 above)."

So far, so good.

"And if you ask your doctor - does this drug contain animal products then the doctor should (stronger - probably level 2, maybe 3) find out about the drug and let you know."

Here's where we can take issue:

"Whether we should expect them (2) if you haven't asked or sanction them (3) if they didn't tell you is less clear to me.

We might also note that there is another side to responsibility when it comes to personal preferences for different treatments. If your preference is idiosyncratic or unusual you, the patient, probably have a responsibility to find out which potential treatments may contain animal products, as well as to let your doctor know that you really don't want animal products (or blood products etc). On the other hand if the preference is very common within the population perhaps the onus should be on the doctor."

Finally, Wilkinson quibbles further:

"As for the relevance of all of this for orthodox judaism, Randy Cohen notes that since Heparin is administered subcutaneously rather than orally it is apparently not proscribed."

Thinking here of being carried away kicking and screaming while refusing ill-intentioned treatment, I rephrase German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller just a little:

First they came for the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim...

Then they came for the Orthodox Jews, but I wasn't an Orthodox Jew...

Then they can for the ethical vegans, and I wasn't an ethical vegan...

Then they came for me, kicking and screaming (and what did they want to do surreptitiously to MY body, about which I would object?)...

Let's put it this way:

Ethicists, particularly bioethicists should be thankful (or, if they don't believe in thankfulness, count themselves fortunate) to HAVE observant Muslims, Orthodox Jews, careful SDAs, self-caring body-owning feminists, and us ethical vegans BECAUSE we help to clarify the case that humans DO object to anyone's surreptitiously sneaking objectionable methods into their treatment and materials and substances into our bodies - in the same way we object to the USDA's approval of GMOs, irradiation, chemicalized agriculture, and more.

We should be THANKFUL that the woman's movement in the West and around the world has joined this chorus of these serious moral objections, and we should WELCOME American Republicanswho are yelling at the top of their lungs:

"Just one moment! What's going to be IN this treatment? What's going to be IN this health care program?"

We psychophysical unities of every stripe, brand, variety, background, persuasion, and pattern of human dignity demand no less than a transparent and open discussion of all these issues, even if it means that some well-intentioned measures can't be ramrodding into law quite so quickly.

Those who KNOW there is objection should be especially eager to fund research into NON-objectionable methods of caring for and preserving human health and for restoring it when illness and disease emerge (and for reducing and eliminating pain and providing proper care and treatment when that's the limit of suitable medical intervention).

We all know that the status quo in healthcare is not good enough, but it's more than access to currently-available treatments and their funding that's a mess. What is also all messed up is the WAY our society thinks about health and healthcare. I can give Ted Kennedy credit for noting that we ought to be paying doctors for keeping patients well, but I only puzzle whether or not we have trained these physicians to KEEP people well (when so much emphasis is placed on listening to complaints and treating post-diagnosisconditions.

Why not listyen to us? Of coruse, they ARE listening to us, and if it flies and flies far, they can claim it as their own.

And who should we be to com,plain if they DO develop treatment modalities that are agree of animal exploitation and abuse, focus first on primary prevention, emphasize a strong role for individual responsibility for health andsocial support for enabling that personal responsibility (safe and suitable exercise facilities in all workplace regions and residential areas, designing urban and suburban areas for exercise, and eliminating all subsidies for animal agriculture and making fresh produce afforcable and safe; shifting emphasis from high tech medicine to wards the low-hanging fruit of primary prevention, etc.). After all, what does it mean sociologically to be a servant of the greater public good, the good of all society? It means to serve wisely and effectively; it does NOT mean taking the credit. In the long run, the HEALTH of the people is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the healthcare delivery of the people UNLESS that healthcare delivery PREVENTS the problems in the first place.

It is BETTER to have NOT suffered at all than to have suffered ravaging illness and disease, then, after costly treatment funded socially, to have recuperated (at least temporarily). Treatment costs money directly AND in lost productivity AND in lost happiness AND in suffering AND in grief for significant others and workplace colleagues. Being HEALTHY IS a savings. That's "IN THE NATURE OF THINGS" for all of us.

If you're looking for healthcare delivery savings, it's in keeping people well; that's why we're shifting to the IDEA of paying healthcare providers differently: paying healthcare systems (not just the doctors) for keeping people well.

In the search for cost savings, Peter Orszag should be exploring primary prevention. Shouldn't we all?

But don't put those animal ingredients in MY treatment protocols (and if we're well, we're less at risk for the medical violation of our bodies).

And the lowest common denominator, and thus the cheapest path for pharmaceutical companies, is to make ALL medicaments FREE of all animal ingredients and byproducts.

The ethicist (note point 3 above) told us that those who object the most should object the loudest because they're the ones who are hardest for the dulled mainstream to hear. We need to make OUR cases that we want an ethical and above-board system of providing health services to our species that don't violate the inherent rights of persons - nonhuman AND human.

And it's better to proactively make the case early than to resort to attorneys 'post-diagnosis' (after our bodies - and bodily rights - have been violated).