Qualitative study explores barriers and motivators for Vietnamese Americans in diabetes prevention and management, suggesting cultural adaptations are essential.
Background/Objectives: There is an invisibility of the diabetes epidemic among Vietnamese Americans. Not only is there limited availability of culturally and linguistically tailored national Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) programs, but there are enrollment and retention challenges that hinder these programs’ sustainability and expansion. The purpose of this study was to explore the cultural beliefs, perceived barriers, and motivating factors that influence Vietnamese Americans’ willingness to engage in existing diabetes prevention and self-management programs. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study design was used. A total of 26 participants were recruited through snowball sampling. Bilingual Vietnamese American researchers conducted semi-structured interviews. Content analysis was used to analyze data. Results: Most participants were in the earlier stages of readiness for engagement in a national diabetes program. Major barriers to engagement were related to financial and time constraints, notable among middle-aged participants. Key motivators for engagement included increasing health awareness and family and other social support. Despite their hesitation regarding diabetes program engagement, most participants were further along in the stages of readiness for self-directed lifestyle management. Conclusions: These results will guide the development of a linguistically and culturally adapted diabetes prevention and management program that will support individuals at various stages of their behavior change journey. The program should align with cultural values, address structural barriers, and emphasize the integration of social and familial motivators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: