ArticleMedicine2020
Mandarin multidimensional health literacy questionnaire for patient supporting groups: A quality improvement article.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modest association between health literacy and risk for peripheral vascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A patient support group (PSG) can serve the purposes of group therapy and education. However, how to evaluate outcome which can feedback to improve the PSG remains unclear. Health literacy, which is associated with patient outcome, has not been used in the evaluation of PSG.Since 2017, we had conducted a working group dedicated to the creation and improvement of PSG. We applied a questionnaire (Mandarin Multidimensional Health Literacy Questionnaire, MMHLQ) for PSGs of all kinds of diseases (5 types, 8 diseases). The outcome was evaluated by the MMHLQ (5 dimensions, 20 variables). We determined factors (age, 1st-time/non-1st-time participation, and patient/family participation) that were associated with all 20 health literacy.We finally obtained 458 questionnaires, with a response rate as high as 91.1% in 8 PSGs. Participants were 55.30 ± 16.39 y/o. The highest score was with the dimension of understanding (12.25 ± 1.85) and the lowest score was with the dimension of appraisal (10.66 ± 2.33). Participating patients (compared to family) were associated with a higher score with "obey the instruction of medical personnel to care disease" but lower score with "find health information from the network". Moreover, older participants (age ≥65 years) had lower scores for all questions in MMHLQ, within which the dimension of appraisal received the lowest scores (P < .001).We found that the highest score is with the dimension of understanding, and the lowest score with the dimension of appraisal. The elderly participants showed lower abilities in health literacy, especially with the dimension of the appraisal. Results from MMHLQ can be used to adjust the PSG curriculum to improve the health literacy of participants.
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.