Literacy and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 1002 adults with diabetes.
Literacy and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 1002 adults with diabetes.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2296-7-49
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-14
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Littenberg, Benjamin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Morris, Nancy S;MacLean, Charles D;Littenberg, Benjamin
背景：文献中报道的不一致的发现导致对识字与健康结果之间的联系缺乏完整的了解。我们评估了成人糖尿病患者中识字、生理控制和糖尿病并发症之间的关系。方法：从佛蒙特州糖尿病信息系统中随机选择1002名讲英语的成人糖尿病患者进行横断面研究，在2003年7月至2005年3月期间对糖尿病决策支持系统在整个地区的初级保健实践样本中进行了整群随机试验。读写能力由成人功能性健康素养的短期测试进行评估。结果：在调整了社会人口学特征、糖尿病病程、糖尿病教育、抑郁、饮酒和药物使用后，我们没有发现识字与血糖控制(β系数，+0.001；95%可信区间[CI]，-0.01至+0.01；P=.88)、收缩压(β系数，+0.08；95%CI，-0.10至+0.26；P=.39)、舒张压(β系数，-0.03；95%CI，-0.12至+0.07，P=.59)或低密度脂蛋白(β系数，+0.04；95%CI，-0.27至+0.36，P=.77。结论：在一项对血糖控制相对较好的老年糖尿病患者进行的横断面研究中，S-TOFHLA量表测量的识字能力与糖化血红蛋白、血压、血脂水平或自我报告的糖尿病并发症无关。还需要进行更多的研究，以考察健康素养的最佳衡量标准及其与随时间推移的健康结果的关系。
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent findings reported in the literature contribute to the lack of complete understanding of the association of literacy with health outcomes. We evaluated the association between literacy, physiologic control and diabetes complications among adults with diabetes.METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 1,002 English speaking adults with diabetes, randomly selected from the Vermont Diabetes Information System, a cluster-randomized trial of a diabetes decision support system in a region-wide sample of primary care practices was conducted between July 2003 and March 2005. Literacy was assessed by the Short-Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. Outcome measures included glycated hemoglobin, low density lipoprotein, blood pressure and self-reported complications.RESULTS: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, duration of diabetes, diabetes education, depression, alcohol use, and medication use we did not find a significant association between literacy and glycemic control (beta coefficent,+ 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.01 to +0.01; P = .88), systolic blood pressure (beta coefficent, +0.08; 95% CI, -0.10 to +0.26; P = .39), diastolic blood pressure (beta coefficent, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.12 to +0.07, P = .59), or low density lipoprotein (beta coefficent, +0.04; 95% CI, -0.27 to +0.36, P = .77. We found no association between literacy and report of diabetes complications.CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that literacy, as measured by the S-TOFHLA, is not associated with glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, lipid levels or self-reported diabetes complications in a cross-sectional study of older adults with diabetes under relatively good glycemic control. Additional studies to examine the optimal measurement of health literacy and its relationship to health outcomes over time are needed.