April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: A Comparison of Gender and Racial Differences among Individuals Managing Type 2 Diabetes
Purpose: Communication patterns that couples use to manage health-focused stressors influences relational satisfaction. The Communication Theory of Resilience (Buzzanell, 2010) describes five communication processes that promote the ability to recover from stressors. Processes include communicating to establish a sense of normalcy, relying on each other for support, honoring important identity markers, being positive despite hardship, and allowing each other to express frustration constructively. This study examines how partnered individuals managing type 2 diabetes communicate in ways that promote resilience. Communication practices often differ by demographic variables, and we examine resilience-promoting communication behaviors across gender (e.g., males vs females) and race (e.g., Black vs Caucasian individuals), as well as how these differences predict relational satisfaction. Understanding these nuances is important to understand the ways different dynamics affect resilience enactment, as well as move us closer to improving health equity.
Method: Individuals diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes were recruited from ResearchMatch.org. As part of a larger study, participants (N = 110) completed a series of measures including the Dyadic Communication Resilience Scale (DCRS; Chernichky-Karcher et al., 2019), relational satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988), and demographics. Participants self-reported as female (53%), male (46%), non-binary (1%), Black (76%), and Caucasian (24%). Data were analyzed using SPSS 29.0.
Results: Differences in resilience-promoting communication emerged by gender and race. Women engage in two resilience process more than men: communication networks (t(106) = -2.86, p < .003, women, M = 4.15; men, M =3.91) and foregrounding productive action (t(94.35) = -2.63, p < .05, women, M = 4.13, men, M = 3.81). Black individuals enact four resilience processes less than Caucasian individuals: crafting normalcy (t(69.76) = -5.29, p < .001, Black, M = 3.88; Caucasian, M = 4.29), using communication networks (t(107) = -3.22, p < .001, Black, M = 3.88; Caucasian, M = 4.37); utilizing alternative logics t(106) = -3.06, p < .001 , Black, M = 4.69; Caucasian, M = 5.33), and foregrounding productive action (t(105) = -3.70, p < .001, (Black M = 3.86; Caucasian, M = 4.39). Examination by gender and race of how resilience processes predict relational satisfaction demonstrated that, in this context, processes largely do not predict relational satisfaction. Exceptions include that among women and Caucasian samples, foregrounding productive action is associated with relational satisfaction.
Discussion: Enactment of resilience processes among individuals managing type 2 diabetes differs by gender and race. Women enact processes more than are men, and White individuals enact resilience processes more than Black individuals. Future research must further consider the unique ways that people differently engage in resilience-promoting behaviors; further, it must consider how current processes may not reflect all people. Additionally, foregrounding productive action was a significant predictor of relational satisfaction among women and White samples. Foregrounding productive action stresses being positive, moving past the diagnosis, and allowing each other to vent when frustrated. Future research should examine how this process may be uniquely poised to aid couples managing Type 2 diabetes as well as other chronic health conditions.
Method: Individuals diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes were recruited from ResearchMatch.org. As part of a larger study, participants (N = 110) completed a series of measures including the Dyadic Communication Resilience Scale (DCRS; Chernichky-Karcher et al., 2019), relational satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988), and demographics. Participants self-reported as female (53%), male (46%), non-binary (1%), Black (76%), and Caucasian (24%). Data were analyzed using SPSS 29.0.
Results: Differences in resilience-promoting communication emerged by gender and race. Women engage in two resilience process more than men: communication networks (t(106) = -2.86, p < .003, women, M = 4.15; men, M =3.91) and foregrounding productive action (t(94.35) = -2.63, p < .05, women, M = 4.13, men, M = 3.81). Black individuals enact four resilience processes less than Caucasian individuals: crafting normalcy (t(69.76) = -5.29, p < .001, Black, M = 3.88; Caucasian, M = 4.29), using communication networks (t(107) = -3.22, p < .001, Black, M = 3.88; Caucasian, M = 4.37); utilizing alternative logics t(106) = -3.06, p < .001 , Black, M = 4.69; Caucasian, M = 5.33), and foregrounding productive action (t(105) = -3.70, p < .001, (Black M = 3.86; Caucasian, M = 4.39). Examination by gender and race of how resilience processes predict relational satisfaction demonstrated that, in this context, processes largely do not predict relational satisfaction. Exceptions include that among women and Caucasian samples, foregrounding productive action is associated with relational satisfaction.
Discussion: Enactment of resilience processes among individuals managing type 2 diabetes differs by gender and race. Women enact processes more than are men, and White individuals enact resilience processes more than Black individuals. Future research must further consider the unique ways that people differently engage in resilience-promoting behaviors; further, it must consider how current processes may not reflect all people. Additionally, foregrounding productive action was a significant predictor of relational satisfaction among women and White samples. Foregrounding productive action stresses being positive, moving past the diagnosis, and allowing each other to vent when frustrated. Future research should examine how this process may be uniquely poised to aid couples managing Type 2 diabetes as well as other chronic health conditions.