ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2026
Health Literacy and Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Mixed Method Study.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2026. 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
backgroundThe increasing prevalence of type 1 diabetes underscores the need for health literacy responsiveness, as effective self-management depends on understanding and using health information. The Ophelia process supports identifying diverse strengths and needs among people with type 1 diabetes.
objectivesTo systematically identify health literacy strengths, needs, and preferences among individuals with type 1 diabetes attending specialized outpatient care using a mixed methods approach guided by phase 1, step 1 and 2 of the Ophelia process.
methodsAdults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes or subtypes (MODY/LADA) at a Danish specialist diabetes center were invited to complete a survey including the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) and three scales from the electronic HLQ (eHLQ). Cluster analysis and in-depth interview were integrated for the development of representative vignettes. KEY
resultsOf 1,193 eligible patients, 238 participated (response rate 19.9%). The mean age was 54.2 years and 52% were men. HLQ and eHLQ scores revealed a wide diversity in health literacy strengths and needs. Health literacy profiles ranged from higher health literacy with active self-management to lower health literacy with low engagement and high reliance on family support. Vignettes vividly illustrated archetypal patient experiences, supporting a tailored understanding of health literacy challenges in clinical practice.
conclusionsSeven distinct health literacy profiles were identified among adults with type 1 diabetes, showing significant variation in health literacy and low health literacy among nearly one fifth, with difficulties navigating the health care system being common. The findings underscore the necessity of developing tailored, person-centered, and health literacy responsive interventions to strengthen diabetes self-management and advance equity in health care access.
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.