ArticlePloS one2017
Validation of a diabetes numeracy test in Arabic.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Health Literacy in Diabetes Knowledge, Self-Care, and Glycemic Control: a Meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Levels and Correlates of Numeracy Skills in Lebanese Adults with Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The association between diabetes numeracy and diabetes self-management among Saudi adults with insulin-treated diabetes.Saudi medical journal · 2021Article
- Building a House of Skills-A Study of Functional Health Literacy and Numeracy among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Hungary.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Iran.International journal of preventive medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of diabetes Mellitus in Saudi Arabia is 24%, ranking it among the top ten Worldwide. Diabetes education focuses on self-management and relies on numeracy skills. Poor numeracy may go unrecognized and it is important to have an assessment tool in Arabic to measure such a skill in diabetes care.
objectivesTo validate a 15-item Diabetes Numeracy Test (DNT-15) in the Arabic Language as a tool to assess the numeracy skills of patients with diabetes and to test its properties among Saudi patients with diabetes.
methodsA 15-question Arabic-language test to assess diabetes numeracy among patients with diabetes on the basis of the diabetes numeracy test (DNT-15) was validated among a sample Arabic speaking Saudi patients with diabetes. Data collection included patients' demographics, long-term glycemic control, diabetes type, duration, co-morbidities, and diabetes related knowledge questions. Internal reliability was assessed using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20).
resultsThe average score of Arabic DNT-15 was 53.3% and took an average of 30 minutes to complete. The scores significantly correlated with education, income, HbA1c, and diabetes knowledge (p<0.05). Content Validity Ratio (CVR) of 0.75 and Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.89 supported good content validity. The Arabic DNT-15 also had good internal reliability (KR20 = 0.90).
conclusionPatients with diabetes need numeracy skills to manage their disease. Level of education does not reflect level of numeracy, and low numeracy skills might be unnoticed by health care providers. The Arabic DNT-15 is a valid and reliable scale to identify Arabic speaking patients with difficulties in certain diabetes-related numeracy skills.
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.