ArticleBMJ open2025
Design and validation of the Disaster Health Literacy Questionnaire for diabetes patients in Iran: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
objectivesTo develop and psychometrically evaluate a multidimensional Disaster Health Literacy Questionnaire (DHLQ) for diabetic patients in Iran, using advanced item response theory approaches. The questionnaire was designed in the Persian (Farsi) language.
designA sequential mixed-methods study incorporating qualitative (scoping review and interviews) and quantitative (psychometric validation) phases.
settingDiabetes clinics and healthcare centres across Iran (2022-2023).
participantsThe study enrolled 570 patients with diabetes (56% female, mean age 45.57±16.33 years) for quantitative validation; 15 experts and 15 patients for qualitative validation. OUTCOME MEASURES: The psychometric properties evaluated included content validity (using content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI)), construct validity (assessed via multidimensional item response theory (MIRT)), and reliability (measured by Cronbach's alpha and test-retest Kappa). Additionally, item parameters (multidimensional difficulty (MDIFF) and multidimensional discrimination (MDISC)) and model fit indices (RMSEA, CFI and TLI) were examined.
resultsThe final 30-item DHLQ demonstrated excellent content validity (scale-level CVI=1; item-level CVI>0.79; CVR>0.49). Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.606; test-retest reliability showed significant agreement (Kappa=0.35-1, p<0.05). MIRT confirmed a three-factor structure: Disaster Perception Risk (14 items), Medication-Nutritional Literacy (11 items), and Self-help and Emergency Literacy (five items). Model fit was excellent (RMSEA=0.016, CFI=0.96, TLI=0.95). Item analysis revealed that 73% of items had moderate-to-high discrimination (MDISC ≥0.65), and 83% had medium-to-low difficulty (MDIFF <0.5).
conclusionThe DHLQ is a rigorously validated tool for assessing disaster health literacy in diabetic populations. Its multidimensional structure and strong psychometric properties support its use in clinical and emergency planning contexts to identify literacy gaps and tailor interventions.
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.