ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2020
Development of a Diabetes-Focused Print Health Literacy Scale Using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Model.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Health Literacy and Outcomes of a Community-Based Self-Help Intervention: A Case of Korean Americans With Type 2 Diabetes.Nursing researchTrial
- Health Literacy in Patients' Clinical Records of Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.SAGE open nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA diabetes mellitus (DM)-specific health literacy (HL) measure that focuses on both oral and print HL is needed in clinical and research settings.
objectiveThe present study developed a psychometrically sound DM-specific HL instrument that measures oral and print HL.
methodsWe developed the measure in three steps. First, we reviewed clinical guidelines and conducted focus groups with experts to generate items. Next, we conducted a psychometric evaluation of the scale in three language versions (English, Spanish, and Korean). Lastly, we identified and removed items with potential cultural bias and duplicate functions to produce shorter versions of the scale, using item response theory (IRT). KEY
resultsWe initially developed an 82-item DM-specific oral HL scale using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (DM-REALM) model. To improve the clinical utility of the DM-REALM, we created shorter forms, a 40-item and 20-item version, and evaluated them by using IRT. All DM-REALM versions had high Cronbach alphas (.985, .974, and .945, respectively) and yielded sufficient convergent validity by positive correlations with existing functional HL scale (r = .49, p < .001), education (r = .14, p = .14 to r = .54, p < .001), and DM knowledge (r = .04, p = .70 to r = .36, p < .001). DM-REALM also demonstrated adequate sensitivity as an intervention evaluation tool that captures the changes induced by an intervention.
conclusionsAll forms of the DM-REALM tool were reliable, valid, and clinically useful measures of HL in the context of DM care. Both researchers and clinicians can use this tool to assess DM-specific HL across multiple racial and ethnic populations. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2020;4(4):e237-e249.] PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This article reported the process and findings of a newly developed health literacy scale for people with diabetes mellitus using three different language versions. Both long and short versions of the scale demonstrated adequate validity and reliability.
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.