3.8 Article

Health literacy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study using the HL-SEU-Q47 questionnaire

期刊

MEDICINA DE FAMILIA-SEMERGEN
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 30-36

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.semerg.2018.08.003

关键词

Health literacy; Diabetes mellitus type 2; Glycaemic control; Outcome assessment (health care)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the level of health literacy of diabetic patients aged 50 to 75 years, from Ourense, Spain, as well as its relationship with the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration and cardiovascular risk of the patient. Material and methods: Cross-sectional study using a self-completed questionnaire. From a multi-stage sampling, urban, type 2 diabetic patients were randomly included. The level of health literacy, using the HLS-EU-Q47 questionnaire, the last concentration of HbA1c, and both total and fatal cardiovascular risk at 10 year follow-up, measured using the UKPDS (U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study) algorithm, were determined. The age, gender, level of education, levelof social support, social class, and comorbidities were used as covariates. Results: A total of 103 patients were analysed. Out of all the patients, 81.5% (84) had an unsuitable health literacy level (29.1% had an inadequate level and 52.4% had a problematic level). A clear association was seen between a higher level of health literacy and higher levels of education. Moreover, the level of health literacy was seen to be inversely related to the levelof control of the patients' diabetes measured on the basis of their HbA1c (P=.03) concentration. However, no such association was found with the cardiovascular risk (P=.3). Conclusions: The results of the present study show that the level of literacy of the analysed population was insufficient, and that its improvement could result in a better outcome in the treatment of diabetic patients. (C) 2018 Sociedad Espanola de Medicos de Atencion Primaria (SEMERGEN). Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据