ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Health literacy assessment of individuals with and without Chagas disease: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Management of Chagas Disease in Primary Health Care: Challenges Faced by Physicians in Areas with Higher and Lower Endemicity in Brazil.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- Factors associated with major electrocardiographic abnormalities in chagas disease patients: SaMi-trop cohort.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
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
backgroundChagas disease (CD) is neglected that affects vulnerable individuals, whose majority has low ability to understand health information.
objectivesTo assess health literacy and its association with sociodemographic, clinical, and quality of life (QoL) characteristics. DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional study the participants with Chagas disease (ChD) were identified through serological diagnosis during blood donation, while those without the disease were seronegative blood donors.
methodsHealth literacy was assessed using the SALPHA-18 tool and grouped into three categories: adequate, inadequate, or illiterate. Descriptive analysis was performed for categorical and quantitative variables, and ordinal logistic regression models assuming proportional odds were used to evaluate the relationship between sociodemographic, clinical, and QoL variables.
resultsA total of 611 participants were included, with 328 having ChD and 283 without the disease. The proportions of individuals with adequate (n = 323), inadequate (n = 200), and illiterate (n = 88) health literacy among those with ChD were 40.2% (130/323), 65.5% (131/200), and 76.1% (67/88), respectively, while among those without the disease, the proportions were 59.8% (193/323), 34.5% (69/200), and 23.9% (21/88), respectively. Better health literacy was associated with females, OR: 1.91 [1.34-2.71]; residents of São Paulo, OR: 3.15 [2.09-4.75]; age < 56 years, OR: 3.05 [2.12-4.39]; income ≥ R$2,200, OR: 2.93 [2.04-4.21]; white ethnicity, OR: 1.64 [1.10-2.44]; and individuals without ChD, OR: 3.78 [2.65-5.41].
conclusionsThe proportion of individuals with inadequate and illiterate health literacy was high, especially among those with positive serology for ChD.
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.