Cultural Views Toward Health Behavior

Cultural Adaptations of Behavioral Health Interventions: A Progress Report

Manuel Barrera Jr. Arizona State University and Oregon Research Institute

Felipe G. Castro University of Texas at El Paso

Lisa A. Strycker and Deborah J. Toobert Oregon Research Institute

Objective: To reduce health disparities, behavioral health interventions must reach subcultural groups and demonstrate effectiveness in improving their health behaviors and outcomes. One approach to developing such health interventions is to culturally adapt original evidence-based interventions. The goals of the article are to (a) describe consensus on the stages involved in developing cultural adaptations, (b) identify common elements in cultural adaptations, (c) examine evidence on the effectiveness of culturally enhanced interven- tions for various health conditions, and (d) pose questions for future research. Method: Influential literature from the past decade was examined to identify points of consensus. Results: There is agreement that cultural adaptation can be organized into 5 stages: information gathering, preliminary design, preliminary testing, refinement, and final trial. With few exceptions, reviews of several health conditions (e.g., AIDS, asthma, diabetes) concluded that culturally enhanced interventions are more effective in improving health outcomes than usual care or other control conditions. Conclusions: Progress has been made in establishing methods for conducting cultural adaptations and providing evidence of their effectiveness. Future research should include evaluations of cultural adaptations developed in stages, tests to determine the effectiveness of cultural adaptations relative to the original versions, and studies that advance our understanding of cultural constructs’ contributions to intervention engagement and efficacy.

Keywords: cultural adaptation, tailoring, ethnic minorities, health interventions, disparities

Health disparities among racial and ethnic groups present a complex national issue (Satcher & Higginbotham, 2008). The Healthy People 2000, 2010, and 2020 reports proposed progres- sively higher aspirations for eliminating health disparities in a nation of growing diversity, challenging researchers and practitio- ners to integrate evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into commu- nity systems of care. To help guide this research, a three-stage framework was proposed: (a) detecting disparities in health and health care, (b) understanding the conditions that account for disparities, and (c) developing interventions to reduce these dis- parities (Kilbourne, Switzer, Hyman, Crowley-Matoka, & Fine, 2006). In addition to ongoing mandates to monitor the status of health disparities and to identify factors accounting for these inequities (Vega, Rodrı́guez, & Gruskin, 2009), there is a pressing need to develop effective behavioral health intervention and pre- vention programs for subcultural groups, especially those groups

and diseases (e.g., Type 2 diabetes) for which health disparities are known to exist.

Public health researchers have long believed that, to be effec- tive, health-behavior interventions must be responsive to the cul- tural practices and worldviews of the subcultural groups for whom these interventions are intended (Resnicow, Baranowski, Ahluwa- lia, & Braithwaite, 1999). Nonetheless, certain questions persist. Under what conditions are cultural adaptations justified? How might such adaptations be achieved? What intervention activities should be added or modified in the development of cultural adap- tations? Are culturally adapted interventions effective? Particu- larly in the past decade, health researchers have proffered thought- ful discussions of these issues (Domenech Rodrı́guez, Baumann, & Schwartz, 2011). The goals of the article are to (a) describe consensus on the stages that can be followed in developing cultural adaptations, (b) identify common elements of cultural adaptations, (c) examine evidence on the effectiveness of culturally enhanced interventions for a variety of health conditions, and (d) identify questions that could be examined in future research.

Definitions of Basic Terms

Culture

Culture is a complex and multidimensional construct. Cohen (2009) observed that, a half century ago, prominent anthropolo- gists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) categorized 164 definitions of culture. Fiske (2002, p. 85) captured points of consensus:

A culture is a socially transmitted or socially constructed constellation consisting of such things as practices, competencies, ideas, schemas,

This article was published Online First January 30, 2012. Manuel Barrera Jr., Department of Psychology, Arizona State Univer-

sity, and Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon; Felipe G. Castro, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso; Lisa A. Strycker and Deborah J. Toobert, Oregon Research Institute.

Felipe G. Castro, Lisa A. Strycker, and Deborah J. Toobert made equal contributions to this article and are listed alphabetically. This work was supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grant R01 HL077120.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Manuel Barrera Jr., Department of Psychology, Box 871104, Arizona State Uni- versity, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 81, No. 2, 196 –205 0022-006X/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027085

196

symbols, values, norms, institutions, goals, constitutive rules, arti- facts, and modifications of the physical environment.

Culture may be viewed as the totality of a subcultural group’s knowledge, transmitted from elders to children, which includes observable entities (patterned behaviors, symbols, and artifacts) and cognitive entities (shared beliefs, schemas, and norms). Cul- tural knowledge also changes to accommodate a subcultural group’s efforts to adapt to environmental conditions. Health is influenced by culture-linked behaviors, such as food selection and food preparation, as well as culture-linked cognitive schemas that are constructed to explain bodily functions and disease processes (Kazarian & Evans, 2001). Accordingly, the cultural adaptation of an original intervention should incorporate observable aspects of a local culture into treatment media and activities and should infuse cognitive aspects of that culture into intervention content.

A Subcultural Group

This term refers to a distinct subgroup that exists within a larger racial/ethnic population. It consists of a smaller and more homo- geneous unit of social organization that is bound by shared life experiences that can include historical ties to a native cultural niche. These common experiences produce cultural customs and traditions that promote a mutual sense of belonging and that are maintained within a new host mainstream culture. As noted by many (e.g., Castro, Barrera, & Holleran Steiker, 2010; Wilson & Miller, 2003), difficulties arise when equating “culture” with “ra- cial/ethnic minority group status” because many subcultural groups will typically exist within a given U.S. racial/ethnic group (e.g., Asian Americans), such that subgroups might exhibit a diversity of lifeways and health-related needs. The term subculture offers a greater level of differentiation and specificity beyond an “ethnic gloss” (Trimble, 1995), where such differentiation is cru- cial for adapting an intervention to meet the needs of a subcultural group that exists within a larger racial/ethnic minority group.

Intervention Development Approaches and Terminology

A number of approaches can be taken to create interventions having cultural elements to boost program appeal, appropriateness, and efficacy (Barrera, Castro, & Holleran Steiker, 2011; Kreuter, Lukwago, Bucholtz, Clark, & Sanders-Thompson, 2003). Barrera, Castro, and Holleran Steiker (2011) identified four major ap- proaches to developing prevention programs for subcultural groups: (a) a sequential research-driven process that begins with basic (generative) studies to understand risk factors for a defined population and then proceeds to intervention design, outcome research, and dissemination (e.g., Diabetes Prevention Program [DPP] Research Group, 2002a, 2002b); (b) an investigator- initiated approach in which investigators provide the fundamental theory-based structure for the intervention, and community mem- bers play an active role in adding cultural elements (e.g., Resnicow et al., 2005); (c) community-initiated indigenous frameworks in which community members and their organizations create inter- ventions that are evaluated subsequently by researchers (see Miller & Shinn, 2005); and (d) cultural adaptations of EBIs (e.g., Toobert et al., 2011), which are the focus of this article.

Cultural adaptation has been defined as “the systematic modi- fication of an evidence-based treatment (EBT) or intervention protocol to consider language, culture, and context in such a way that it is compatible with the client’s cultural patterns, meanings, and values” (Bernal, Jimenez-Chafey, & Domenech Rodrı́guez, 2009, p. 362). In a sense, it is the middle ground between two extreme positions: (a) a universal approach (a “top-down” ap- proach) that views an original intervention’s content as applicable to all subcultural groups and not in need of alterations, and (b) a culture-specific approach (a “bottom-up” approach) that empha- sizes culturally grounded content consisting of the unique values, beliefs, traditions, and practices of a particular subcultural group (Falicov, 2009). Some purported “cultural adaptations” have been essentially “top-down” intervention modifications without mean- ingful input from subcultural group members themselves. A crit- ical point that is developed in this article is that exemplary cultural adaptation procedures integrate both “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches through a series of adaptation stages.

Falicov (2009) used the term cultural attunement to describe additions to evidence-based therapies that are intended to boost engagement and retention of subcultural group members. Such additions might include providing services in clients’ native lan- guage, utilizing bicultural staff, and incorporating familiar cultural traditions. Attunement involves changes to increase reach and engagement, but it does not modify core treatment components. Other terms—such as culturally sensitive, culturally enhanced, culturally appropriate, culturally informed, culturally grounded, culture specific, and culturally focused— have been used to de- scribe deliberate efforts to increase the appeal and effectiveness of interventions that are used with subcultural groups (Mier, Ory, & Medina, 2010; Wilson & Miller, 2003).

The term culturally tailored is often used as a synonym for culturally adapted interventions. However, Kreuter and colleagues advocated for a distinction between targeted and tailored inter- ventions (Kreuter et al., 2003; Kreuter & Skinner, 2000; Kreuter & Wray, 2003). Kreuter and Skinner (2000, p. 1) contended that defining features of a tailored intervention are

(1) its collection of messages or strategies . . . intended for a particular person rather than a group of people and (2) these messages or strategies are based on individual level factors that are related to the health or behavioral outcome of interest.

In this view, true culturally tailored approaches identify cultural dimensions relevant to health (e.g., religiosity, racial pride), mea- sure individual differences on those dimensions, and deliver indi- vidualized health promotion messages matching an individual’s endorsement of cultural dimensions. As an illustration, Kreuter et al. (2003) offered the following tailored message for an African American woman in a cancer prevention program:

If a woman is age 40 years or older, has not had a mammogram in the past year, and agrees with the statement, “When I am ill, I pray for healing,” her magazines would include a story built around the fol- lowing general concept: “The Lord has given us a powerful tool for helping find cancer before it’s too late. Getting a mammogram, together with the power of prayer, will give you the best chance to live a long and healthy life.” (pp. 139 –140)

By contrast, Kreuter and Skinner (2000) reserved the term targeted for a single intervention designed for a particular subcultural group

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

197CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS

based on characteristics common to subcultural group members. Elaborating, Kreuter et al. (2003, p. 137) wrote,

But importantly, there would be only one version of the program or materials, and it would be the same for all members of the group . . . targeting also implicitly assumes that there is sufficient homogeneity within the target population to justify using one common approach to reach all its members.

Some culturally targeted interventions assume subgroup homoge- neity, but in other cases, culturally targeted interventions explicitly provide for individual variation in the expression of culture. As an example, problem solving (e.g., Nezu, Nezu, Felgoise, McClure, & Houts, 2003) has been incorporated into health interventions for subcultural groups (e.g., Toobert et al., 2011). Problem solving is commonly taught in a standardized way to groups of participants as a uniform sequence of steps, although the problems and solu- tions participants identify are individualized expressions of cul- tural influences and personal characteristics. For instance, a uni- form problem-solving framework permits a deeply religious African American woman to select prayer as a solution for over- coming the problem of insufficient motivation for physical activity while allowing another African American woman who is not religious to elect a secular strategy. Other standardized interven- tions give participants choice in selecting barriers to behavior change, goals, and action plans (e.g., Glasgow, Christiansen, Smith, Stevens, & Toobert, 2009; Kristal, Shattuck, & Patterson, 1999) and can be adapted into culturally targeted programs that do not assume homogeneity within a subcultural group.

Stages in the Cultural Adaptation of EBIs

A decade ago, the literature provided little guidance for deter- mining when and how EBIs should be culturally adapted. As recently as 2006, McKleroy et al. (2006, p. 60) wrote,

Currently, there is no CDC-recommended process or set of agreed- upon best practices for adapting EBIs to conditions different from those present in the original research. As a result, there is increasing concern that insufficient guidance may limit the effectiveness of EBIs under these new conditions.

Fortunately, more recently, several models to guide cultural adap- tations have been proposed (Barrera & Castro, 2006; Domenech Rodrı́guez & Wieling, 2004; Kumpfer, Pinyuchon, Melo, & Whi- teside, 2008; McKleroy et al., 2006; Wingood & DiClemente, 2008). Although these models appear to have been developed independently, they exhibit considerable consensus (also see Table 2 in Castro et al., 2010). In one of the early stage models, Barrera and Castro (2006) proposed a sequence of four intervention adap- tation stages consisting of (a) information gathering, (b) prelimi- nary adaptation design, (c) preliminary adaptation tests, and (d) adaptation refinement. Table 1 integrates health intervention ad- aptation activities delineated in systematic stage models (Barrera & Castro, 2006; Kumpfer et al., 2008; McKleroy et al., 2006; Wingood & DiClemente, 2008). HIV/AIDS has been the subject of more stage models for the cultural adaptation of interventions than any other health condition (Card, Solomon, & Cunningham, 2011; Dévieux, Malow, Rosenberg, & Dyer, 2004; Dworkin, Pinto, Hunter, Rapkin, & Remien, 2008; Kelly et al., 2000; McKleroy et al., 2006; Solomon, Card, & Malow, 2006; Tortolero et al., 2005;

Wainberg et al., 2007; Wingood & DiClemente, 2008), in part because of National Institutes of Health directives that called for such adaptations (Bell et al., 2007).

A critical aspect of cultural adaptation stage models is that they integrate “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. The models have the theory and procedures from initial efficacy trials as starting points (“top-down” elements) but then subject the original intervention to scrutiny by subcultural group members who pro- vide input at various stages (“bottom-up” elements) to shape an adapted version that is ultimately evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively.

Stage 1: Information Gathering

This phase has the dual purpose of determining whether an adaptation is justified and, if so, which intervention components might be modified. Lau (2006) advocated a theory- and data- driven approach for determining when conditions justify a cultural adaptation and, if so, which treatment elements should be modi- fied. She argued that cultural adaptations might be warranted when a subcultural group exhibits differences in the risk or resilience factors related to a health outcome. Rather than attending to mean differences between groups, the emphasis is on group differences in correlations between risk factors and outcomes such as health, illness, or their precursors. This recognizes the possibility that subcultural groups can differ in the theoretical mechanisms (e.g., self-efficacy, risk perception) that explain health outcomes and in mechanisms targeted for change in interventions. Culturally spe- cific mechanisms suggest the need for unique intervention com- ponents that differ from the original intervention’s core compo- nents. Literature searches done during this phase are focused on identifying studies that show subcultural group differences (Au- gust & Sorkin, 2011; Steers, Elliott, Nemiro, Ditman, & Oskamp, 1996) or similarities (Sarkar, Fisher, & Schillinger, 2006) on health mechanisms relevant for a particular intervention.

Clearly, comparative outcome research that tests for subcultural group differences in intervention engagement or efficacy provides a direct method for assessing the merit of a cultural adaptation. For example, the Diabetes Prevention Program included sizable sub- samples of African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, Na- tive Americans, and non-Hispanic Caucasians (DPP Research Group, 2002a, 2002b). Despite indications of racial/ethnic group differences in responsiveness to different recruitment strategies (DPP Research Group, 2002a), analyses of the primary outcomes showed that the intervention had comparable efficacy across these racial/ethnic groups (DPP Research Group, 2002b). Thus, there was little evidence from that study to support the need for a cultural adaptation of the basic DPP intervention procedures. In the Women’s Health Trial Feasibility Study in Minority Populations, which was conducted in multiple sites with non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics (Kristal et al., 1999), the inter- vention was modified by adjusting written materials to sixth-grade reading level, adding foods and preparation methods familiar to those of Cuban heritage residents and southern Blacks, and trans- lating materials into Cuban Spanish. Subcultural group differences were not found in reductions of total dietary fat, but notable subcultural group differences were observed regarding the manner in which the reductions were achieved. Subcultural groups tended to make greatest reductions in areas where they were elevated at

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

198 BARRERA, CASTRO, STRYCKER, AND TOOBERT

baseline, likely reflecting different subcultural group traditions in food choices and methods of food preparation. Those differences were identified as potential targets for additional cultural adapta- tions of the nutrition intervention.

Formative studies to determine how well an original interven- tion would fit the needs and preferences of a subcultural group are common in adaptation efforts (Crawford et al., 2004; Osuna et al., 2011; Rosal, Goins, Carbone, & Cortes, 2004; Stanton et al., 2005; Strolla, Gans, & Risica, 2006). One study used focus groups and key informant interviews with 120 Latinos to assess the value of culturally adapting a breast and cervical cancer intervention orig-

inally designed for African American women (Erwin et al., 2007). Attitudes toward cancer and spiritual beliefs were similar across African American and Latino participants, but group differences were found such that male partners had a greater influence on health-care utilization for Latinas than for African American women. Results suggested that the intervention for Latinas would be strengthened with an additional component to allay Latino men’s concerns about breast and cervical cancer screening meth- ods.

During this phase, quantitative studies can be conducted to determine whether cultural adaptations are warranted. For exam-

Table 1 Stages in the Cultural Adaptation of Evidence-Based Interventions: An Integration of Several Models

Stage Possible adaptation activities

Information gathering Search literature for evidence of subcultural group differences in modifiable risk factors, particularly those risk factors addressed in core components of evidence-based interventions.

Search literature to determine whether previous applications of evidence-based interventions with subcultural groups show deficient engagement or efficacy.

Determine whether there are sizable mismatches between features of original intervention’s efficacy research and the features of intended application with subcultural groups on three domains: (a) participant characteristics, (b) program delivery staff, and (c) administrative/community factors.

Conduct quantitative surveys to assess needs and intervention preferences of potential subcultural group participants.

Conduct formative (qualitative) research with potential participants and key informants who are experienced in working with targeted subcultural groups to assess likes and dislikes of the original intervention materials and procedures; gather suggestions for additions and improvements to original intervention; assess community’s capacity to implement intervention.

Based on information gathered at this stage, determine whether an evidence-based intervention should be adapted.

Preliminary adaptation design Integrate the input of relevant stakeholders (potential participants, program developers, agency staff) into draft treatment adaptation.

Preserve core elements of original intervention unless there is good evidence that a core element should be dropped (e.g., evidence does not support modifiable risk factors).

Translate and back-translate materials from original language into language appropriate for subcultural group.

Conduct qualitative research to gather opinions from potential participants and community experts on draft materials and descriptions of intervention activities.

For technology-mediated interventions, conduct usability tests (e.g., “think aloud” method) to determine how well participants can navigate equipment and procedures; useful for identifying training needs.

Preliminary adaptation tests Train staff to deliver a preliminary version of the adaptation.

Conduct case studies and/or pilot studies using the preliminary version of the adaptation.

During treatment and at the end of treatment, assess participants and intervention staff with quantitative measures and interviews to determine the following: (a) implementation difficulties; (b) difficulties with program content or activities; (c) satisfaction with treatment elements, including cultural features; and (d) suggestions for improvements.

Adaptation refinement Use feedback from case studies or pilot studies to revise the intervention.

Cultural adaptation trial Conduct a full trial of the revised intervention procedures to determine whether the adaptation had the desired effects on engagement, putative mediators, and health outcomes.

Test for interactions between intervention condition and participant characteristics such as acculturation, education, and literacy.

Test for mediation to determine whether the adapted intervention affected the putative mediators (including cultural mechanisms such as decreasing acculturative stress) and whether those mediators affected outcomes.

Conduct in-depth interviews of participants and interventionists to inform possible further modifications.T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

199CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS

ple, in telephone survey research with 288 Mexican American adults with Type 2 diabetes (Davis, Peterson, Rothschild, & Resni- cow, 2011), the investigators found a relationship between low acculturation and a preference for religious content such as the use of prayer. Quantitative and qualitative methods and behavioral observations can be combined to inform modifications, as in the development of culturally relevant nutrition education programs (Ayala et al., 2001; Buller et al., 2001; Strolla et al., 2006). In a review of randomized controlled trials on diet and exercise inter- ventions with Hispanics, Mier et al. (2010) reported that 44% of the studies used focus groups, literature searches, or surveys to guide culturally sensitive intervention design.

Stage 2: Preliminary Adaptation Design

In this stage, information gathered in the first stage is integrated to inform preliminary modifications of the original intervention. Core components of the original intervention should not be altered unless there is convincing countervailing evidence from Stage 1 (Card et al., 2011; Kumpfer et al., 2008; McKleroy et al., 2006). However, it is not always apparent which elements of an interven- tion are “core” and which are discretionary (Elliott & Mihalic, 2004). The essential components of behavioral health interventions are typically identified by theory but are infrequently confirmed empirically.

Also, there are no simple solutions when key stakeholders find original intervention components unacceptable. As an illustration, the adaptation of a sexual-risk-reduction intervention that had been effective for urban African American youths (Stanton et al., 2005) was less successful for youths living in rural West Virginia when physical display of condoms and discussion of protected sex were minimized in deference to the concerns raised in focus groups with West Virginia parents and other community residents. It is possible that material found objectionable by focus group participants was essential for sexual risk reduction.

For many cultural adaptations, original intervention materials require language translation or reading-level adjustments. Trans- lations and back-translations are common, yet can be complicated, particularly when a subcultural group (e.g., Latino immigrants) is heterogeneous in nationality, regional dialects, and acculturation. Also, literal translations of culture-specific idioms might not be possible, which then require challenging translations that attempt to preserve the original meaning. Non-equivalent translations can have a profound effect on results (Viruell-Fuentes, Morenoff, Williams, & House, 2011). In this stage, focus groups or advisory panels should review preliminary versions of the adaptation to identify translation shortcomings or other potentially problematic features of the revisions. Although translations are considered surface structure changes, they are critically important aspects of cultural adaptations.

This stage also includes usability testing with subcultural group members to identify and address issues arising from technological components of the intervention (e.g., interactive voice response systems, touch-screen computer kiosks, web-based programs, smart phones; Zimmerman, Akerelrea, Buller, Hau, & Leblanc, 2003). The “think aloud” method, in which participants verbalize their thoughts as they interact with technology procedures, can be useful (Glasgow et al., 2009).

Stage 3: Preliminary Adaptation Tests

After drafting a preliminary version of a cultural adaptation, pilot testing is recommended (Barrera & Castro, 2006; Kumpfer et al., 2008; McKleroy et al., 2006). Continuous feedback from staff members who implement the pilot intervention can be particularly valuable (Barrera, Toobert, Strycker, & Osuna, in press). During the pilot testing phase of a culturally adapted intervention for Latinas with Type 2 diabetes, weekly meetings between the inves- tigators and staff, as well as audiotaped weekly group sessions with program participants, helped researchers assess participants’ reactions (Osuna et al., 2011).

During this stage, measures to be used in the full efficacy trial can also be piloted. This is an opportunity to evaluate the quality of measure translations and the clarity of instructions, items, and response scales. Data collected from these measures provide an initial assessment of the intervention’s ability to change putative mediators and outcomes (Osuna et al., 2011). Exit interviews also may be used with participants and staff to determine ways of improving the adaptation (Barrera et al., in press).

Stage 4: Adaptation Refinement

In this relatively focused stage, feedback from the pilot is used to make changes to the preliminary adaptation (Barrera & Castro, 2006; McKleroy et al., 2006; Wingood & DiClemente, 2008). As in Stages 1 and 2, deviations from the original intervention should be based on compelling quantitative or qualitative data. Decisions made at this stage require informed judgments from a leadership team that could include investigators and staff, a community advisory panel, and subcultural group members.

Stage 5: Cultural Adaptation Trial

This stage provides an empirical trial of the cultural adaptation produced in the prior stages. Those concerned that excessive intuition, personal impressions, and idiosyncratic preferences might have shaped the adaptation can be reassured by this quan- titative outcome research phase. Often these tests are two-armed studies in which the cultural adaptation is compared to a control condition; samples often consist of members of one subcultural group (e.g., Toobert et al., 2011). Such studies can determine whether the cultural adaptation is more effective than usual care, no intervention, or some other control condition. Few studies have directly compared the original intervention to its culturally adapted version (for exceptions, see Newton & Perri, 2004; Yanek, Becker, Moy, Gittelsohn, & Koffman, 2001). If a study does not include such a direct comparison, intervention effect sizes may be com- pared between the cultural adaptation and the original EBI (Bar- rera, Toobert, Strycker, Osuna, King, & Glasgow, 2011; Stanton et al., 2005).

In addition to testing the effectiveness of the cultural adaptation in engaging participants and changing health outcomes, finer grained analyses may be conducted to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the adaptation. These may include moderator anal- yses that examine interactions between intervention conditions and participant background characteristics, such as acculturation, edu- cation, health literacy, and health numeracy. One challenge for culturally targeted adaptations is to accommodate within-ethnic-

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

200 BARRERA, CASTRO, STRYCKER, AND TOOBERT

group variation in acculturation and other individual-difference variables. Often, the goal is to produce adaptations that are effec- tive for the full spectrum of subcultural group members. For example, a study of 280 Latinas diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes found no acculturation-by-intervention interactions on putative mediators or outcomes, indicating that the effective, culturally adapted intervention was robust across all levels of acculturation (Barrera, Toobert, Stryker, & Osuna, 2011). The inclusion of acculturation or other cultural individual difference variables are seldom evaluated as potential moderators of culturally adapted interventions, a notable limitation of the literature.

What Is Changed in Cultural Adaptations?

Cultural-adaptation phase models address the process of infus- ing culture into interventions, or what might be termed the “How?” of adaptation. Several reviewers have analyzed the extant literature to organize current knowledge about the “What?” of adaptation, or the specific ways cultural considerations are manifested in adapted health interventions (Kreuter et al., 2003; Mier et al., 2010; Resni- cow et al., 1999; Wilson & Miller, 2003). There has been consid- erable agreement regarding the features incorporated into cultural adaptations and how those communalities can be categorized. Table 2 merges several useful frameworks (Kreuter et al., 2003; Mier et al., 2010; Resnicow et al., 1999; Wilson & Miller, 2003). The table is divided into a two-category classification system that distinguishes surface-structure from deep-structure intervention components (Resnicow et al., 1999). In their review of culturally grounded HIV prevention programs, Wilson and Miller (2003) used the parallel terms “presentation strategies,” or the visual/ audible intervention characteristics (surface structure), and “con- tent strategies,” or the integration of cultural elements into inter- vention activities and messages (deep structure).

Specific examples in the body of Table 2 are from a more comprehensive table in a review by Mier et al. (2010), who sought to identify the “principles and components” of culturally sensitive interventions. Although Mier et al. was restricted to nutrition and physical activity interventions for Hispanics, the table contents apply to many subcultural groups and health behaviors. A separate organizational scheme proposed by Kreuter et al. (2003, p. 136), which maps onto much of the table contents, contained the fol- lowing categories: (a) peripheral strategies that modify the ob- servable properties of intervention materials by “using certain colors, images, fonts, pictures of group members, or declarative titles (e.g., “A guide for African Americans”) that overtly convey relevance to the group”; (b) linguistic strategies that alter the language used in intervention materials to make them comprehen- sible; (c) constituent-involving strategies that utilize the cultural knowledge and experience of members of the subcultural group; (d) sociocultural strategies in which a subcultural group’s “cul- tural values, beliefs, and behaviors are recognized, reinforced, and built upon”; and (e) evidential strategies that use “evidence” such as epidemiological data for a specific subcultural group or expe- riences from individuals with similar backgrounds to increase the perceived relevance of information in health communication and health education interventions. The framework by Kreuter et al. (2003) also was used to organize culturally sensitive intervention activities in literature reviews on Hispanics with Type 2 diabetes (Whittemore, 2007) and on African American cancer survivors (Hamilton, Agarwal, Song, Moore, & Best, 2011).

Are Cultural Adaptations Effective?

Several reviews have concluded that culturally enhanced behav- ioral health interventions for ethnic minority participants are ef- fective. The reviews covered a diversity of illnesses and health

Table 2 Common Features of Culturally Sensitive Health Interventions: An Integration of Several Organizational Schemes

Categories from Resnicow et al. (1999) and Wilson & Miller (2003)

Common features

Examples from Mier et al. (2010); terms in parentheses from Kreuter et al. (2003)

Surface structure features (or “presentation strategies”)

Bilingual and bicultural materials and staff (linguistic strategies, constituent-involving strategies)

Translation/back-translation of materials (linguistic strategies)

Inclusion of ethnic lifestyle elements, such as foods, music (peripheral strategies)

Use of community health workers, such as promotoras (constituent-involving strategies)

Delivery of the intervention in group settings

Siting the intervention in safe locations familiar to participants

Provision of hands-on activities, fun activities

Incorporation of culturally familiar formats and activities, such as novela format, loteria game, Salsa dancing (peripheral strategies)

Inclusion of same-race/ethnicity role models (peripheral strategies)

Deep structure features (or “content strategies”)

Incorporation of cultural values in intervention design or implementation, such as familism, confianza, simpatia, fatalism (sociocultural strategies)

Involvement of the family in interventions

Adjustment of materials to literacy level of participants (linguistic strategies)

Use of social support and networks

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

201CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS

behaviors, including asthma (Bailey et al., 2009), diabetes (Gla- zier, Bajcar, Kenne, & Wilson, 2006; Hawthorne, Robles, Cannings-John, & Edwards, 2010; Sarkisian, Brown, Norris, Wintz, & Mangione, 2003; Whittemore, 2007), HIV/AIDS (Darbes, Crepaz, Lyles, Kennedy, & Rutherford, 2008), mammog- raphy use (Han et al., 2009), nutrition (Eyles & Mhurchu, 2009), and nutrition and exercise (Mier et al., 2010). These reviews, including quantitative meta-analyses and qualitative narrative analyses, were not restricted to studies that used sequential stages for the cultural adaptations. In fact, some reviewers had broad criteria for “cultural tailoring” that included very limited modifi- cations (e.g., Darbes et al., 2008).

A systematic review of 17 studies that focused on “socially disadvantaged adults” with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes included 10 studies with culturally enhanced interventions (Glazier et al., 2006). Adaptation efforts—such as conducting needs assessments, focus groups, and pilot studies to check on the cultural appropri- ateness of the intervention—were reported in the studies reviewed. The authors concluded that cultural enhancement was one of the features associated with positive intervention outcomes such as improvements in hemoglobin A1c, weight/body mass index, lip- ids, blood pressure, dietary intake, and physical activity. In a second review of diabetes interventions that analyzed 12 random- ized controlled trials conducted with ethnic minority groups (Haw- thorne et al., 2010), the culturally appropriate health education interventions “had been tailored to the cultural or religious beliefs and linguistic and literary skills of the community being studied” (Hawthorne et al., 2010, p. 614). The reviewers found that cultur- ally appropriate health education was more effective than usual health education in improving hemoglobin A1c and diabetes knowledge. Reviews focusing on Latino adults (Whittemore, 2007) and older African American and Latino adults with diabetes (Sarkisian et al., 2003) also concluded that cultural adaptation was a characteristic of effective diabetes interventions.

In a meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials of HIV interventions for heterosexual African Americans, Darbes et al. (2008) concluded that cultural enhancement (broadly defined) was a factor associated with intervention efficacy. In contrast, an earlier review of HIV prevention by Wilson and Miller (2003) found little support for the efficacy of cultural adaptations. They analyzed 17 studies (nine of which also were reviewed by Darbes et al., 2008) that evaluated interventions with an explicit goal of addressing cultural issues. Seven of the studies evaluated the hypothesis that culturally adapted interventions were more effec- tive than those that were not adapted. Results provided little evidence that culturally adapted interventions were superior on measures of risk of exposure to HIV. However, Wilson and Miller (2003) criticized the adapted interventions for lacking sound the- oretical foundations that might have guided more effective inter- ventions. Poor statistical power for detecting between-groups dif- ferences and very modest cultural adaptations (such as only matching ethnicity of group leaders to ethnicity of group members) also contributed to the lack of significant differences between adapted and unadapted interventions.

A unique review of culturally sensitive nutrition and exercise interventions for Hispanics covered features of studies that were not included in other reviews: theoretical foundations of the inter- ventions, operationalizations of ethnicity and culture, main inter- vention components, recruitment strategies, and influence of cul-

tural factors on intervention outcomes (Mier et al., 2010). The review found that 13 of 18 studies produced significant effects for culturally adapted interventions on outcome measures of nutrition or exercise. Furthermore, three intervention features appeared to be associated with intervention success: involvement of family or social support, literacy-level appropriateness, and cultural values.

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Health researchers have addressed the challenge of health dis- parities by developing interventions designed to reach, engage, and improve the health of subcultural groups. Thus far, two important conclusions have emerged.

First, distinct progress has been made in specifying stages to guide efforts to culturally adapt interventions. Confidence in the validity and utility of stage models is bolstered not only by the considerable agreement that they show (Barrera & Castro, 2006; Domenech Rodrı́guez, & Wieling, 2004; Kumpfer et al., 2008; McKleroy et al., 2006; Wingood & DiClemente, 2008) but also by the effectiveness of the stage-developed culturally adapted inter- ventions. The ADAPT-ITT model by Wingood and DiClemente (2008) was illustrated with applications for African American women in Atlanta and Zulu-speaking adolescent women in Africa. Kumpfer et al. (2008) reported empirical evaluations of the cul- tural adaptation of the Strengthening Families Program in Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and other countries. The value of Barrera and Castro’s (2006) model was illustrated in a cultural adaptation of lifestyle intervention for Latinas with Type 2 diabetes, including the early adaptation phases (Barrera et al., in press; Osuna et al., 2011), and from a formal efficacy trial (Barrera, Toobert, Strycker, Osuna, King, & Glasgow, 2011; Toobert et al., 2011).

Second, reviewers dealing with a variety of health topics have concluded almost uniformly that culturally appropriate health in- terventions were more effective than usual care or other control conditions. Such positive findings are impressive considering that many reviews (e.g., Sarkisian et al., 2003; Wilson & Miller, 2003) analyzed studies that were conducted well before there was much guidance on the stages that could be followed to culturally adapt an EBI. When reviews failed to find much support for the benefits of culturally enhanced interventions (Whitt-Glover & Kumanyika, 2009; Wilson & Miller, 2003), there were often explanations such as poor statistical power (e.g., Newton & Perri, 2004; Yanek et al., 2001) or minimal adjustments to increase cultural sensitivity (e.g., Jemmott, Jemmott, Fong, & McCaffree, 1999). Overall, the results of these reviews offer hope that future cultural adaptations will be even more effective if they learn from the lessons of others.

There are important limitations to past research. Because cul- turally adapted interventions are rarely compared directly to the original interventions, we do not know with certainty that cultur- ally adapted features add significant efficacy. This type of com- parative research is difficult and costly to conduct. In some cases, it is hard to imagine providing unaltered interventions to subcul- tural groups without making basic adaptations such as language translations or delivery by bilingual staff. Also, it would be costly to launch an adequately powered study comparing an original intervention, a culturally adapted intervention, and a control con- dition, particularly if differences between the original and adapta- tion are expected to be modest.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

202 BARRERA, CASTRO, STRYCKER, AND TOOBERT

Among the many reviews of cultural enhancement efficacy, almost all were based on very few studies—some as few as four (Bailey et al., 2009; Eyles & Mhurchu, 2009; Mc Manus & Savage, 2010). The small number of studies greatly limited the use of meta-analytic methods for finding statistical relations between features of culturally enhanced interventions and health outcomes. With the possible exception of HIV/AIDS, more evaluations are needed of systematic cultural adaptations on all health topics and on interventions directed at children. In general, research on cul- turally adapted health interventions lags somewhat behind research on culturally adapted psychotherapies for mental health concerns, which has supported several in-depth meta-analyses (Benish, Quintana, & Wampold, 2011; Griner, & Smith, 2006; Huey & Polo, 2008). Also, there is value in evaluating the effects of culturally adapted interventions not only on proximal health out- comes but also on measures of reach, engagement, adoption by health care providers, and maintenance of effects (see Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999). Cultural adaptations that show short-term health outcome effects comparable to those of the original inter- vention might still show better (or worse) effects on measures of agency adoption and participants’ willingness to take part in in- terventions and sustain their involvement.

Toward an Understanding of “Culture” in Culturally Adapted Interventions

Researchers could do more to better understand how any of several cultural variables (Castro & Hernández-Alarcón, 2002) might be incorporated into adapted interventions and the mecha- nisms by which those variables might contribute to intervention efficacy. Several reviewers were critical of cultural adaptations that lacked theoretical frameworks involving cultural concepts (Castro et al., 2010; Mier et al., 2010; Wilson & Miller, 2003). Intervention outcome research can be used not only to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention but also to test theory (Howe, Reiss, & Yuh, 2002). When cultural adaptations are explicitly designed to influence a cultural construct that could operate as a mediator of change (e.g., enhancing cultural identity), studies could inform culturally relevant theory by evaluating whether the intervention succeeded in changing that construct and whether that change affected the outcome (Castro et al., 2010). Toward this important aim, the designers of culturally relevant health interventions should be explicit about the hypothesized roles of specific cultural variables and should design evaluation research that tests theoret- ical assertions.

References

August, K. J., & Sorkin, D. H. (2011). Support and influence in the context of diabetes management: Do racial/ethnic differences exist? Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 711–721. doi:10.1177/1359105310388320

Ayala, G. X., Elder, J. P., Campbell, N. R., Engelberg, M., Olson, S., Moreno, C., & Serrano, V. (2001). Nutrition communication for a Latino community: Formative research foundations. Family & Community Health, 24, 72– 87.

Bailey, E. J., Cates, C. J., Kruske, S. G., Morris, P. S., Brown, N., & Chang, A. B. (2009). Culture-specific programs for children and adults from minority groups who have asthma. Cochrane Database System Reviews, Issue 2. Art. No. CD006580. doi:10.1002/14651858 .CD006580.pub4

Barrera, M., Jr., & Castro, F. G. (2006). A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13, 311–316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00043.x

Barrera, M., Jr., Castro, F. G., & Holleran Steiker, L. K. (2011). A critical analysis of approaches to the development of preventive interventions for subcultural groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 439 – 454. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9422-x

Barrera, M., Jr., Toobert, D. J., Strycker, L. A., & Osuna, D. (2011). Effects of acculturation on a culturally adapted diabetes intervention for Latinas. Health Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/ a0025205

Barrera, M., Jr., Toobert, D. J., Strycker, L. A., & Osuna, D. (in press). Adaptation of a lifestyle change intervention for Latinas with Type 2 diabetes. In G. Bernal & M. M. Domenech Rodriguez (Eds.), Cultural adaptations: Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse popula- tions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barrera, M., Jr., Toobert, D. J., Strycker, L. A., Osuna, D., King, D., & Glasgow, R. E. (2011). Multiple-behavior– change interventions for women with Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum, 24, 75– 80. doi: 10.2337/diaspect.24.2.75

Bell, S. G., Newcomer, S. F., Bachrach, C., Borawski, E., Jemmott, J. B., III, Morrison, D., . . . Zimmerman, R. (2007). Challenges of replicating interventions. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 514 –520. doi:10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2006.09.005

Benish, S. G., Quintana, S., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Culturally adapted psychotherapy and the legitimacy of myth: A direct-comparison meta- analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 279 –289. doi:10.1037/ a0023626

Bernal, G., Jimenez-Chafey, M. I., & Domenech Rodrı́guez, M. M. (2009). Cultural adaptation of treatments: A resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac- tice, 40, 361–368. doi:10.1037/a0016401

Buller, D. B., Woodall, W. G., Zimmerman, D. E., Heimendinger, J., Rogers, E. M., Slater, M. D., . . . Le Blanc, M. L. (2001). Formative research activities to provide web-based nutrition education to adults in the upper Rio Grande Valley. Family & Community Health, 24, 1–12.

Card, J. J., Solomon, J., & Cunningham, S. D. (2011). How to adapt effective programs for use in new contexts. Health Promotion Practice, 12, 25–35. doi:10.1177/1524839909348592

Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., Jr., & Holleran Steiker, L. K. (2010). Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interven- tions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 213–239. doi:10.1146/ annurev-clinpsy-033109-132032

Castro, F. G., & Hernández-Alarcón, E. (2002). Integrating cultural vari- ables into drug abuse prevention and treatment with racial/ethnic mi- norities. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 783– 810.

Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64, 194 –204. doi:10.1037/a0015308

Crawford, P. B., Gosliner, W., Anderson, C., Strode, P., Becerra-Jones, Y., Samuels, S., . . . Ritchie, L. D. (2004). Counseling Latina mothers of preschool children about weight issues: Suggestions for a new frame- work. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104, 387–394. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2003.12.018

Darbes, L., Crepaz, N., Lyles, C., Kennedy, G., & Rutherford, G. (2008). The efficacy of behavioral interventions in reducing HIV risk behaviors and incident sexually-transmitted diseases in heterosexual African Americans. AIDS, 22, 1177–1194. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282ff624e

Davis, R. E., Peterson, K. E., Rothschild, S. K., & Resnicow, K. (2011). Pushing the envelope for cultural appropriateness: Does evidence sup- port cultural tailoring and Type 2 diabetes interventions for Mexican- American adults? The Diabetes Educator, 37, 227–238. doi:10.1177/ 0145721710395329

Dévieux, J. G., Malow, R. M., Rosenberg, R., & Dyer, J. G. (2004). Context and common ground: Cultural adaptation of an intervention for

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

203CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS

minority HIV-infected individuals. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 11, 49 –57.

Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2002a). The Diabetes Prevention Program: Recruitment methods and results. Controlled Clin- ical Trials, 23, 157–171. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00184-2

Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2002b). Reduction in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 393– 403. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa012512

Domenech Rodrı́guez, M. M., Baumann, A. A., & Schwartz, A. L. (2011). Cultural adaptation of an evidence based intervention: From theory to practice in a Latino/a community context. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 47, 170 –186. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9371-4

Domenech Rodrı́guez, M., & Wieling, E. (2004). Developing culturally appropriate, evidence-based treatments for interventions with ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi & E. Wieling (Eds.), Voices of color: First-person accounts of ethnic minority therapists (pp. 313–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dworkin, S. L., Pinto, R. M., Hunter, J., Rapkin, B., & Remien, R. H. (2008). Keeping the spirit of community partnerships alive in the scale up of HIV/AIDS prevention: Critical reflections on the role out of DEBI (Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions). American Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 51–59. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9183-y

Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science, 5, 47–53. doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000013981.28071.52

Erwin, D. O., Johnson, V. A., Trevino, M., Duke, K., Feliciano, L., & Jandorf, L. (2007). A comparison of African-American and Latina social networks as indicators for culturally tailoring a breast and cervical cancer education intervention. Cancer, 109, 368 –377. doi:10.1002/ cncr.22356

Eyles, H. C., & Mhurchu, C. N. (2009). Does tailoring make a difference? A systematic review of the long-term effectiveness of tailored nutrition education for adults. Nutrition Reviews, 67, 464 – 480. doi:101111/ j.1753-4887.2009.00219.x

Falicov, C. J. (2009). Commentary: On the wisdom and challenges of culturally attuned treatments for Latinos. Family Process, 48, 292–309. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01282.x

Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78 – 88. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.78

Glasgow, R. E., Christiansen, S., Smith, K. S., Stevens, V. J., & Toobert, D. J. (2009). Development and implementation of an integrated, multi- modality, user-centered interactive dietary change program. Health Ed- ucation Research, 24, 461– 471. doi:10.1093/her/cyn042

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM frame- work. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1322–1327. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.89.9.1322

Glazier, R. H., Bajcar, J., Kenne, N. R., & Wilson, K. (2006). A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvan- taged populations. Diabetes Care, 29, 1675–1688. doi:10.2337/dc05– 1942

Griner, D., & Smith, T. B. (2006). Culturally adapted mental health interventions: A meta-analytic review. Psychotherapy: Theory, Re- search, Practice, Training, 43, 531–548. doi:10.1037/0033- 3204.43.4.531

Hamilton, J. B., Agarwal, M., Song, L., Moore, A. D., & Best, N. (2011). Are psychosocial interventions targeting older African American cancer survivors culturally appropriate? A review of the literature. Cancer Nursing. Advance online publication. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e31821e0b11

Han, H. R., Lee, J. E., Kim, J., Hedlin, H. K., Song, H., & Kim, M. T. (2009). A meta-analysis of interventions to promote mammography

among ethnic minority women. Nursing Research, 58, 246 –254. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181ac0f7f

Hawthorne, K., Robles, Y., Cannings-John, R., & Edwards, A. G. K. (2010). Culturally appropriate health education for Type II diabetes in ethnic minority groups: A systematic and narrative review of random- ized controlled trials. Diabetic Medicine, 27, 613– 623. doi:10.1111/ j.1464-5491.2010.02954.x

Howe, G. W., Reiss, D., & Yuh, J. (2002). Can prevention trials test theories of etiology? Development and Psychopathology, 14, 673– 694. doi:10.1017/S0954579402004029

Huey, S. J., & Polo, A. J. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for ethnic minority youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37, 262–301. doi:10.1080/15374410701820174

Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S., Fong, G. T., & McCaffree, K. (1999). Reducing HIV risk-associated sexual behavior among African American adolescents: Testing the generality of intervention effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 161–187. doi:10.1007/ BF02503158

Kazarian, S. S., & Evans, D. R. (2001). Health psychology and culture: Embracing the 21st century. In S. S. Kazarian & D. R. Evans (Eds.), Handbook of cultural health psychology (pp. 3– 43). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012402771-8/50003-9

Kelly, J. A., Heckman, T. G., Stevenson, L. Y., Williams, P. N., Ertl, T., Hays, R. B., . . . Neumann, M. S. (2000). Transfer of research-based HIV prevention interventions to community service providers: Fidelity and adaptation. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12, 87–98.

Kilbourne, A. M., Switzer, G., Hyman, K., Crowley-Matoka, M., & Fine, M. J. (2006). Advancing health disparities research within the health care system: A conceptual framework. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 2113–2121. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.077628

Kreuter, M. W., Lukwago, S. N., Bucholtz, D. C., Clark, E. M., & Sanders-Thompson, V. (2003). Achieving cultural appropriateness in health promotion programs: Targeted and tailored approaches. Health Education & Behavior, 30, 133–146. doi:10.1177/1090198102251021

Kreuter, M. W., & Skinner, C. S. (2000). Tailoring: What’s in a name? Health Education Research, 15, 1– 4. doi:10.1093/her/15.1.1

Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. Amer- ican Journal of Health Behavior, 27, S227–S232.

Kristal, A. R., Shattuck, A. L., & Patterson, R. E. (1999). Differences in fat-related dietary patterns between Black, Hispanic and White women: Results from the Women’s Health Trial Feasibility Study in Minority Populations. Public Health Nutrition, 2, 253–262. doi:10.1017/ S1368980099000348

Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. K. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kumpfer, K. L., Pinyuchon, M., Melo, A. T., & Whiteside, H. O. (2008). Cultural adaptation process for international dissemination of the Strengthening Families Program. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 31, 226 –239. doi:10.1177/0163278708315926

Lau, A. S. (2006). Making a case for selective and directed cultural adaptations of evidence-based treatments: Examples from parent train- ing. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13, 295–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00042.x

McKleroy, V. S., Galbraith, J. S., Cummings, B., Jones, P., Harshbarger, C., Collins, C., . . . ADAPT Team. (2006). Adapting evidence-based behavioral interventions for new settings and target populations. AIDS Education and Prevention, 18, 59 –73. doi:10.1521/aeap.2006.18 .supp.59

Mc Manus, V., & Savage, E. (2010). Cultural perspectives of interventions for managing diabetes and asthma in children and adolescents from ethnic minority groups. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36, 612– 622. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01101.x

Mier, N., Ory, M. G., & Medina, A. A. (2010). Anatomy of culturally

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

204 BARRERA, CASTRO, STRYCKER, AND TOOBERT

sensitive interventions promoting nutrition and exercise in Hispanics: A critical examination of existing literature. Health Promotion Practice, 11, 541–554. doi:10.1177/1524839908328991

Miller, R. L., & Shinn, M. (2005). Learning from communities: Overcom- ing difficulties in dissemination of prevention and promotion efforts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 169 –183. doi:10.1007/ s10464-005-3395-1

Newton, R. L., Jr., & Perri, M. G. (2004). A randomized pilot trial of exercise promotion in sedentary African-American adults. Ethnicity & Disease, 14, 548 –557.

Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., Felgoise, S. H., McClure, K. S., & Houts, P. S. (2003). Project Genesis: Assessing the efficacy of problem-solving therapy for distressed adult cancer patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 1036 –1048. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.6.1036

Osuna, D., Barrera, M., Jr., Strycker, L. A., Toobert, D. J., Almeida, F., Rasmussen, C. G., . . . Glasgow, R. E. (2011). Methods for the cultural adaptation of a diabetes lifestyle intervention for Latinas: An illustrative project. Health Promotion Practice, 12, 341–348. doi:10.1177/ 1524839909343279

Resnicow, K., Baranowski, T., Ahluwalia, J. S., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1999). Cultural sensitivity in public health: Defined and demystified. Ethnicity & Disease, 9, 10 –21.

Resnicow, K., Jackson, A., Blissett, D., Wang, T., McCarty, F., Rahotep, S., & Periasamy, S. (2005). Results of the Healthy Body Healthy Spirit Trial. Health Psychology, 24, 339 –348. doi:10.1037/0278- 6133.24.4.339

Rosal, M. C., Goins, K. V., Carbone, E. T., & Cortes, D. E. (2004). Views and preferences of low-literate Hispanics regarding diabetes education: Results of formative research. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 388 – 405. doi:10.1177/1090198104263360

Sarkar, U., Fisher, L., & Schillinger, D. (2006). Is self-efficacy associated with diabetes self-management across race/ethnicity and health literacy? Diabetes Care, 29, 823– 829. doi:10.2337/diacare.29.04.06.dc05–1615

Sarkisian, C. A., Brown, A. F., Norris, K. C., Wintz, R. L., & Mangione, C. M. (2003). A systematic review of diabetes self-care interventions for older, African-American, or Latino adults. Diabetes Educator, 29, 467– 479. doi:10.1177/014572170302900311

Satcher, D., & Higginbotham, E. J. (2008). The public health approach to eliminating disparities in health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 400 – 403. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.123919

Solomon, J., Card, J. J., & Malow, R. M. (2006). Adapting efficacious interventions: Advancing translational research in HIV prevention. Eval- uation & the Health Professions, 29, 162–194. doi:10.1177/ 0163278706287344

Stanton, B., Guo, J., Cottrell, L., Galbraith, J., Li, A., Gibson, C., . . . Har- ris, C. (2005). The complex business of adapting effective interventions to new populations: An urban to rural transfer. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 163. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.005

Steers, W. N., Elliott, E., Nemiro, J., Ditman, D., & Oskamp, S. (1996). Health beliefs as predictors of HIV-preventive behavior and ethnic differences in prediction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 99 – 110. doi:10.1080/00224545.1996.9923032

Strolla, L. O., Gans, K. M., & Risica, P. M. (2006). Using qualitative and quantitative formative research to develop tailored nutrition intervention

materials for a diverse low income audience. Health Education Re- search, 21, 465– 476. doi:10.1093/her/cyh072

Toobert, D. J., Strycker, L. A., Barrera, M., Jr., Osuna, D., King, D. K., & Glasgow, R. E. (2011). Outcomes from a multiple-risk-factor diabetes self-management trial for Latinas: ¡Viva Bien! Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 41, 310 –323. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9256-7

Tortolero, S. R., Markham, C. M., Parcel, G. S., Peters, R. J., Jr., Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Basen-Engquist, K., & Lewis, H. L. (2005). Using intervention mapping to adapt an effective HIV, sexually transmitted disease, and pregnancy prevention program for high-risk minority youth. Health Promotion Practice, 6, 286 –298. doi: 10.1177/1524839904266472

Trimble, J. E. (1995). Toward an understanding of ethnicity and ethnic identity, and their relationship with drug abuse research. In G. J. Botvin, S. Shinke, & M. A. Orlandi (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention with multi- ethnic youth (pp. 3–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vega, W. A., Rodriguez, M. A., & Gruskin, E. (2009). Health disparities in the Latino population. Epidemiologic Reviews, 31, 99 –112. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxp008

Viruell-Fuentes, E. A., Morenoff, J. D., Williams, D. R., & House, J. S. (2011). Language of interview, self-rated health, and the other Latino health puzzle. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1306 –1313. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.175455

Wainberg, M. L., McKinnon, K., Mattos, P. E., Pinto, D., Mann, C. G., de Oliveira, C. S., . . . Cournos, F. (2007). A model for adapting evidence- based behavioral interventions to a new culture: HIV prevention for psychiatric patients in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. AIDS and Behavior, 11, 872– 883. doi:10.1007/s10461-006-9181-8

Whittemore, R. (2007). Culturally competent interventions for Hispanic adults with Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. Journal of Transcul- tural Nursing, 18, 157–166. doi:10.1177/1043659606298615

Whitt-Glover, M. C., & Kumanyika, S. K. (2009). Systematic review of interventions to increase physical activity and physical fitness in African-Americans. American Journal of Health Promotion, 23, S33– S56. doi:10.4278/ajhp.070924101

Wilson, B. D. M., & Miller, R. L. (2003). Examining strategies for culturally grounded HIV prevention: A review. AIDS Education and Prevention, 15, 184 –202. doi:10.1521/aeap.15.3.184.23838

Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2008). The ADAPT-ITT model: A novel method of adapting evidence-based HIV interventions. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 47, S40 –S46. doi:10.1097/ QAI.0b013e3181605df1

Yanek, L. R., Becker, D. M., Moy, T. F., Gittelsohn, J., & Koffman, D. M. (2001). Project Joy: Faith based cardiovascular health promotion for African-American women. Public Health Reports, 116, 68 – 81. doi: 10.1093/phr/116.S1.68

Zimmerman, D. E., Akerelrea, C. A., Buller, D. B., Hau, B., & Leblanc, M. (2003). Integrating usability testing into the development of a 5 a day nutrition website for at-risk populations in the American Southwest. Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 119 –134. doi:10.1177/ 1359105303008001448

Received September 30, 2011 Revision received November 30, 2011

Accepted December 22, 2011 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

205CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS