↓ Skip to main content

Physician notification of their diabetes patients’ limited health literacy: A randomized, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Physician notification of their diabetes patients’ limited health literacy: A randomized, controlled trial
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2005
DOI 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00189.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary K. Seligman, Frances F. Wang, Jorge L. Palacios, Clifford C. Wilson, Carolyn Daher, John D. Piette, Dean Schillinger

Abstract

Many patients with chronic disease have limited health literacy (HL). Because physicians have difficulty identifying these patients, some experts recommend instituting screening programs in clinical settings. It is unclear if notifying physicians of patients' limited HL improves care processes or outcomes. To determine whether notifying physicians of their patients' limited HL affects physician behavior, physician satisfaction, or patient self-efficacy. We screened all patients for limited HL and randomized physicians to be notified if their patients had limited HL skills. Sixty-three primary care physicians affiliated with a public hospital and 182 diabetic patients with limited HL. After their visit, physicians reported their management strategies, satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and attitudes toward HL screening. We also assessed patients' self-efficacy, feelings regarding HL screening's usefulness, and glycemic control. Intervention physicians were more likely than control physicians to use management strategies recommended for patients with limited HL (OR 3.2, P=.04). However, intervention physicians felt less satisfied with their visits (81% vs 93%, P=.01) and marginally less effective (38% vs 53%, P=.10). Intervention and control patients' post-visit self-efficacy scores were similar (12.6 vs 12.9, P=.6). Sixty-four percent of intervention physicians and 96% of patients felt HL screening was useful. Physicians are responsive to receiving notification of their patients' limited HL, and patients support the potential utility of HL screening. However, instituting screening programs without specific training and/or system-wide support for physicians and patients is unlikely to be a powerful tool in improving diabetes outcomes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 102 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 27%
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 11 10%
Unspecified 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 41%
Unspecified 17 16%
Social Sciences 14 13%
Psychology 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Other 11 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,249,699
of 12,348,329 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#946
of 4,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,824
of 337,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#15
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.