ArticleJournal of clinical & translational endocrinology2024
Development and acceptability of a culturally competent skills and knowledge assessment tool for patients with diabetes mellitus.
Article in Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging User-Centered Design and Usability and Skills Testing for a Novel Diabetes Survival Skills Toolkit.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional primary care study of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of type 2 diabetes self-care and their association with sociodemographic and sociocultural factors in Cali, Colombia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly prescribed insulin need to learn essential self-care and management skills quickly. To optimize teaching, clinicians need to assess a patient's basic understanding of DM and their skills. While DM patient assessments exist, this study reports the development of an assessment of patient DM management skills and knowledge, using feedback from DM clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Research Design and Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed/Medline and Scopus (1980-2017) of DM knowledge assessments was performed. Twenty-four studies were identified. Content from the existing assessments was adapted to create a 12 item DM-Skills Knowledge Assessment (SKA) to assess a patient's DM management skills and knowledge. To assess cultural humility, modified cognitive interviews were conducted in individual user sessions and semi-structured focus groups. Audio-transcripts of the interviews/focus groups were independently coded, and codes were grouped into key themes. Participant demographic characteristics were assessed. Results: Five focus groups and eleven key informant interviews were conducted, including 10 DM clinicians, 12 patients/caregivers, and 15 laypersons. All 10 clinicians reported that the DM-SKA addresses the key domains of DM education deemed to be of highest importance during the transition from hospital to home and that their patients would be willing to complete the assessment. More than half of the patient/caregiver/layperson participants self-reported race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white and performed similarly to non-Hispanic white participants in understanding each item, willingness to complete the DM-SKA, and perception that family or community members would be willing to complete the DM-SKA. The DM-SKA has a baseline Flesch reading score of 81.3, indicating low complexity language. Conclusion: DM clinicians agreed that the DM-SKA assesses all essential DM management skills. For patients/caregivers, it has acceptable literacy, cognitive validity, and culturally acceptable for racial/ethnic minority populations in the study, including elderly persons.
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.