ArticlePublic health nutrition2013
Health information regarding diabetes mellitus reduces misconceptions and underestimation of consequences in the general population.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Common Diabetes Mellitus Misinformation Exposure, Cognitive Attitude, and Intention to Share Information Among Patients in a Primary Care Unit.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diabetes Mellitus Knowledge, Attitudes, Preventive Practices and Associated Factors Among a Sample of Adult Non-Diabetic Saudi Residents.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2023Article
- Level of knowledge, attitude and practice towards diabetes among nationals and long-term residents of Qatar: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Health Literacy and Quality of Life in Young Adults From The Belgian Crohn's Disease Registry Compared to Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate self-assessed knowledge about diabetes mellitus, to assess determinants of health knowledge and to evaluate consequences of health knowledge on appraisal about consequences of the disease.
designPopulation-based computer-assisted web interview survey, supplemented with a paper-and-pencil survey via post.
settingRepresentative sample of the general Austrian population aged 15 years and older. SUBJECTS: Men (n 1935) and women (n 2065) with and without diabetes mellitus.
resultsSome 20.5% of men and 17.7% of women with diabetes, and 46.2% of men and 36.7% of women without diabetes, rated their knowledge about diabetes mellitus to be ‘very bad’ or ‘rather bad’. Individuals with diabetes and individuals with a family member with diabetes rated their information level more often as ‘very good’ or ‘rather good’, with adjusted OR (95% CI) of 1.7 (1.1, 2.8) and 2.1 (1.6, 2.7), respectively, in men and 2.7 (1.5, 4.8) and 2.7 (2.1, 3.5), respectively, in women. Additional significant influencing factors on diabetes knowledge were age and educational level in both sexes, and city size in men. Independent of personal diabetes status, diabetes knowledge was associated with a lower perception of restrictions on daily life of diabetes patients and with a lower probability of underestimating health consequences of diabetes.
conclusionsHealth knowledge is associated with fewer misconceptions and less underestimation of health consequences in individuals both with and without diabetes mellitus. Thus health information about diabetes is important on the individual level towards disease management as well as on the public health level towards disease prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.