The American Heart Association (AHA) developed a behavioral roundtable to address cardiovascular disease (CVD) disparities, with a focus on the primary prevention of obesity. This roundtable considered the preventable differences in the indicators of health of different population groups, often defined by race, ethnicity, sex, educational level, socioeconomic status, and geographic location of residence. To reduce the rates of CVD in disproportionately affected population groups, we explored behavioral strategies for each of the 5 risk stages: 1) no known cardiovascular risk, 2) known cardiovascular risk, 3) acute CVD, 4) rehabilitation, and 5) chronic CVD. We examined sample AHA programs targeting each of the risk stages to consider how to pose questions about reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (the RE-AIM evaluation framework). The strategies outlined in this article can be used to develop collaborations for planning, implementing, and evaluating possible interventions to reduce CVD disparities.
The AHA Nutrition Committee, with support from its Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel (INAP), established several behavioral roundtables to address behavioral issues and translation to practice focusing on the AHA mission. Each roundtable, with representatives from the Nutrition Committee, INAP, and AHA staff, brainstormed ideas to help the Nutrition Committee integrate behavioral issues into strategic and program planning. The special population behavioral roundtable, which focused on behavioral issues for populations with disparate rates of cardiovascular risk, included 2 Nutrition Committee members who became the authors of the report. Using an iterative process, we examined potential applications of the roundtable's recommendations to existing AHA programs. Our goal was to provide a framework to help AHA staff and volunteers at the national and affiliate levels as they plan and implement AHA programs that address the needs of special population groups. This article can also help other agencies as they implement AHA programs and focus on reducing health disparities.
Our roundtable focused on preventable differences in the widening gap in CVD morbidity and mortality (
The Institute of Medicine's multilevel approach (
The variables that we thought were important in addressing special population needs at each risk stage are listed in the
We considered the importance of community partnerships — in which community representatives participate in defining research problems, interpreting data, and applying findings — in fostering community-based participatory research methods for the evaluation of disparate rates of CVD or its risk factors (
The Alliance for a Healthier Generation (
How many schools, children, health care organizations, or food manufacturers participate in selected prevention activities compared to target (eg, attendance and distribution numbers for programs or materials available)? How many of the participating schools are in vulnerable communities with disparate rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease?
What was the impact of programs on fitness and weight measures (preintervention and postintervention and compared to national trends)? Does the target population buy or use (or intend to buy or use) the products or services (eg, lunch, snack options) that promote a healthful lifestyle? How did beverage consumption change in the schools? Does the program efficacy vary by community demographics and resources?
How many of the potential providers or stakeholders (eg, schools) provide the intervention components? How does this compare to the need and the goal? Is variability in providing components related to resource disparities in the community? What are the community resources for promoting a healthy lifestyle? How much are the available resources used? How did beverage policy change in the schools?
What are the barriers to providing the targeted service? Are the programs developed consistent with the AHA and Alliance recommendations for a healthful lifestyle? How feasible is intervention implementation in a variety of real-world settings?
Are school and other programs sustainable based on annual reviews? Will the target population continue to use the facility (eg, path for walking), goods or services (eg, purchasing low-fat milk) after the program or campaign is over?
The AHA does not provide direct services to people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, the AHA's Web site provides decision trees to guide health professionals in treating risk factors and self-help programs for people who have cardiovascular risk factors, for example, diabetes or hypertension (
How many people with the identified risk factor (diabetes or hypertension) use the Web site? How many health professionals accessed risk factor reduction information?
How well did patient users achieve goals for a healthy lifestyle and reduce CVD risk status? Potential measures include self-reported control of CVD risk factors such as lipid profile, blood pressure, and blood glucose as well as measures such as body weight, dietary intake, and physical activity. Do rates of achieving goals differ?
How do Web site users compare with the general population and the vulnerable subgroups with diabetes or hypertension? Are population groups with disparate rates of risk factors using the Web site? How do these health professionals compare to others in their profession?
Which components of the programs were used? Were the Web site features used as planned? What are the barriers to implementing the recommendations for patients and health care providers? Are there more barriers for population groups with diabetes and hypertension health disparities? What is needed to make effective programs more translatable to the real world?
Will program users continue desired patient or self-care behaviors? Will Web site links continue to have sponsorship and be available on the AHA Web site?
At this risk stage, the focus shifts to immediate emergency care issues. The AHA has a national network of community-based programs designed to reduce response times to cardiac emergencies by improving access to automatic external defibrillators among laypeople. Success of these Operation Heartbeat programs depends in part on the public's knowledge of the warning signs of a myocardial infarction (MI) and the appropriate response to cardiac arrest victims (
What is the availability of acute cardiac services in the target community? What is the estimated need? How many people in the community know about or know how to use the service? How does the availability of service compare to the number of people who need the service?
Do community residents receive needed treatment in a timely manner (eg, emergency response time)? Does response time vary based on community characteristics?
How many public facilities employ staff who know how to use emergency services? How available are catheterization and revascularization services? Are some communities with excess morbidity and mortality lacking access to these services?
What are the barriers to increasing access to emergency or cardiac services? Can the findings be generalized and translated to programs elsewhere? What resources and other factors are needed to do so?
How can a program continue to address service needs? Examination of program sustainability can be based on audits of emergency responses, and cardiac event mortality can be evaluated based on medical charts and review of emergency service logs.
The AHA promotes a partnership between patients and their doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals to help patients change their health habits. Patients take an active role in making these changes (
How many people receive AHA-recommended rehabilitation services (eg, after having a heart attack or stroke)? What is the availability of cardiac rehabilitation in the target community? What is the estimated need? How many people in the community know about or know how to use the service? Are some communities lacking access to rehabilitation services?
What is the overall quality of life and health for people who have had a CVD event? How are demographic and community characteristics related to health and quality-of-life measures?
How many facilities provide recommended components of rehabilitation? How does the quality of rehabilitation facilities relate to disparities in outcomes?
What are the barriers to offering comprehensive (including lifestyle counseling) rehabilitation services in underserved communities? Staff and patient interviews can provide insights about services offered and their use.
How well do patients maintain recommended lifestyle changes after participating in a rehabilitation program? What resources are institutionalized as ongoing rehabilitation services? Is a comprehensive rehabilitation program available over time?
The AHA launched the Get With the Guidelines (GWTG) program in 2000 to help hospitals treat patients with evidence-based medicine known to improve health outcomes (
How many hospitals participate in the GWTG program? How many patients are treated with the GWTG program? What is the estimated need? How many people in the community know about or know how to use the service? Do underserved communities have access to hospitals in the GWTC program?
How do the statistics for second MI compare to rates where the GWTG program is not available? Do community residents receive treatment needed in a timely manner? How many stroke and MI patients receive treatment within the recommended time window? What are the disparities in the rates of secondary prevention of stroke and MI?
What percentage of the staff and hospital programs follow the guidelines as recommended? Do GWTG hospitals in underserved communities implement guidelines at the same level as other hospitals?
What are the barriers to secondary prevention? What are the views with regard to secondary prevention in patients, families, and health providers? Is there sufficient coordination to meet patients' needs? Can the findings be generalized and translated to programs elsewhere? What resources and other factors are needed to do so?
How many hospitals continue to meet the guidelines every year? Do hospitals in underserved communities continue to meet guidelines at the same rate as those in other communities?
The RE-AIM evaluation rubric provides a framework for examining AHA programs and collaborative projects. Applying the rubric to each of the identified stages of risk reduction can provide insights for addressing disparities. Creating innovative partnerships and enhancing community-based participatory research (community organizations, community clinics) will allow the AHA to increase healthy lifestyle educational programs and the number of community organizations that implement these programs. These efforts could lead to changes in policies, including access to care, physician training on cultural awareness, and treatment guidelines sensitive to ethnic differences.
We thank the AHA Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel for providing an unrestricted grant to address the needs of special populations in the nutrition behavioral roundtable, which led to the development of this paper. We are especially grateful to JoAnn Hamamura, MS, CNS, who served as industry cochair for the special populations workgroup, and Vickie Peters, MS, who served as the AHA facilitator.
Screening guidelines
Priorities based on hierarchy of needs (eg, food, housing)
Family history and genetic factors related to risk
Lack of knowledge as a barrier
Lack of access to care or diagnosis
Often negative with health institutions (racism or poverty)
Values and beliefs (denial of illness)
Environmental influences on habits
Competing priorities relating to sense of self within cultural, ethnic, or sex groups
Limited access to risk assessment and screening
Partnering with community programs, community activism
US Department of Agriculture community-supported agriculture
Social gathering places (churches, schools, malls, beauty shops)
Sports and leisure-time activities
Marketing strategies for partnering
Housing units
Community gatekeepers
Feeling vulnerable
Traditional roles in family or culture (motivation to change)
Women (care for family vs self)
Acknowledge risk (partnering/knowledge/perception/beliefs)
Awareness of demographic or social changes in communities
Projections for health systems and needs must be timely
Disparity between haves and have nots (disparity could increase as technology advances improve medication options and tailoring of intervention based on gene expression)
Bioethical research (labeling concerns, rationing of services, tests, or procedures)
Access to health care providers
Enablers of choice
How to process knowledge (need for an environment that supports it)
Recognition of symptoms and knowing what action to take
Appropriate care (timely, transcultural communications)
Education in hospital to start or reinforce desired behaviors
Guidance to patients (cultural issues)
Bringing in family and educating family (impact of acute event on roles)
Assessing lifestyle issues (cultural competency of providers)
Planning for follow-up
Coronary heart disease (perception of patient and family, cultural issues)
Peripheral vascular disease (perception of patient and family, cultural issues)
Eating habits and nutrition (individual and cultural comfort foods, perceived role of nutrition and physical activity in determining health)
Exercise program (barriers to implementing exercise at home)
Focus on individual requires family support (role of individual within family)
Access to rehabilitation services (distance, communication with staff)
Predictors of access and use (within context of the model)
Mental health issues (cultural aspects, fatalism)
Maintenance of rehabilitation learning and habits (sources of reinforcement and access)
Traditional food habits (integration of dietary modifications)
Motivation to change and perceived control to prevent recurrence
Knowledge of how to change, adapt (sources of information)
Programs not designed to reflect culture, income
Cultural differences related to illness and recovery
Attitudes about physical activity (individual and cultural)
Diversity in style of positive coping
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above. URLs for nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. URLs do not constitute an endorsement of any organization by CDC or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these URLs.