Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33726714›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Low health literacy is associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany.

Daniel Tajdar, Dagmar Lühmann, Regina Fertmann, Tim Steinberg, Hendrik van den Bussche, Martin Scherer, Ingmar Schäfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Establishing and implementing the National Action Plan Health Literacy in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel TajdarDepartment of Primary Care at Hamburg University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany. Daniel.Tajdar@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8948-0105
Dagmar LühmannDepartment of Primary Care at Hamburg University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Regina FertmannHamburg Authority of Health and Consumer Protection, Hamburg, Germany.
Tim SteinbergDepartment of Primary Care at Hamburg University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Hendrik van den BusscheDepartment of Primary Care at Hamburg University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of Primary Care at Hamburg University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Ingmar SchäferDepartment of Primary Care at Hamburg University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow health literacy is believed to be associated with behaviours that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. But there is limited knowledge on the relation between health literacy (HL) and diabetes risk, and whether improving HL could be a potential prevention strategy. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine the link between HL and diabetes risk among non-diabetic adults.

methodsWe used data from the Hamburg Diabetes Prevention Survey, a population-based cross-sectional study in Germany. One thousand, two hundred and fifty-five non-diabetic subjects aged 18-60 years were eligible. The German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS, ranging 0 to 123 points) was used to determine the individual risk of type 2 diabetes. The short version of the European Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16, ranging 0 to 16 points) was applied to assess the individual self-reported HL. Subjects were asked to self-estimate their diabetes risk, which was then compared with the calculated GDRS. Descriptive statistics were calculated to investigate group differences in the GDRS and self-estimated diabetes risk. Linear as well as logistic regression models were performed to analyse potential influencing variables of the GDRS as well as incorrect self-estimated diabetes risk. In three nested statistical models for each outcome, these analyses were adjusted for age, gender, educational level and the presence of chronic conditions.

resultsAccording to the criteria of the GDRS, 996 (79.4%) subjects showed "low risk", 176 (14.0%) "still low risk", 53 (4.2%) "elevated risk", and 30 (2.4%) "high to very high risk" to develop type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years. In the statistical models including all control variables, subjects with "inadequate HL" scored 2.38 points higher on the GDRS (95% CI 0.378 to 4.336; P = 0.020) and had a 2.04 greater chance to estimate their diabetes risk incorrectly (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.14; P = 0.001) compared to those with "sufficient HL".

conclusionThe risk of type 2 diabetes is increased in people with inadequate self-reported HL. People with high diabetes risk and inadequate HL might be provided with educational programs to improve diabetes knowledge and reduce behavioural risk factors.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Health LiteracyAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultDiabetes riskGDRSHealth literacyHLS-EU-Q16PreventionType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID33726714
PMCPMC7962353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.