↓ Skip to main content

Physician Notification of Their Diabetes Patients' Limited Health Literacy

Overview of attention for article published in 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
Title
Physician Notification of Their Diabetes Patients' Limited Health Literacy
Published in
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 153 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 20%
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Professor 9 6%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 34%
Psychology 20 13%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 35 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,721,580
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,988
of 8,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,158
of 76,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 8,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 76,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.