ArticleDigital health
Construction of a health literacy prediction model for diabetic patients: A multicenter study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: To achieve a rapid assessment of health literacy (HL) levels among diabetic patients. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted among diabetic patients from nine communities in Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, China, using convenient sampling. Based on the survey results, data from three communities were randomly selected as the test set, with the remaining data used as the training set. Feature selection was performed using recursive feature elimination. Predictive models were established and compared using logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM). Calibration curves, decomposition plots, and partial dependence plots were drawn to evaluate and interpret the models. Results: In November 2023, a total of 802 valid questionnaires were received. Eight variables were selected for modeling: educational level, exercise habits, average monthly household income, dietary control, age, medication for blood sugar control, duration of diabetes, and number of cohabitants. The recall for LR in the three communities was 0.778, 0.800, and 0.862 [area under the curve (AUC): 0.810, 0.792, and 0.775]. For RF, the recall values were 0.879, 0.877, and 0.923 (AUC: 0.781, 0.710, and 0.710). For SVM, the recall values were 0.859, 0.862, and 0.877 (AUC: 0.813, 0.759, and 0.770). Model evaluation showed that as the data volume increased, the calibration curves became more ideal. Conclusions: As one of the few HL prediction models for diabetic patients in mainland China that is built based on multi-center survey data and evaluated through multi-center assessment, this model can quickly identify patients with insufficient HL using a small amount of objective personal information.
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.