Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,162

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Closing the Loop: Physician Communication With Diabetic Patients Who Have Low Health Literacy

Schillinger, Dean, Piette, John, Grumbach, Kevin, Wang, Frances, Wilson, Clifford, Daher, Carolyn, Leong-Grotz, Krishelle, Castro, Cesar, Bindman, Andrew B.·2003·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients recall or comprehend as little as half of what physicians convey during an outpatient encounter. To enhance recall, comprehension, and adherence, it is recommended that physicians elicit patients' comprehension of new concepts and tailor subsequent information, particularly for patients with low functional health literacy. It is not known how frequently physicians apply this interactive educational strategy, or whether it is associated with improved health outcomes. METHODS: We used direct observation to measure the extent to which primary care physicians working in a public hospital assess patient recall and comprehension of new concepts during outpatient encounters, using audiotapes of visits between 38 physicians and 74 English-speaking patients with diabetes mellitus and low functional health literacy. We then examined whether there was an association between physicians' application of this interactive communication strategy and patients' glycemic control using information from clinical and administrative databases. RESULTS: Physicians assessed recall and comprehension of any new concept in 12 (20%) of 61 visits and for 15 (12%) of 124 new concepts. Patients whose physicians assessed recall or comprehension were more likely to have hemoglobin A(1c) levels below the mean (< or = 8.6%) vs patients whose physicians did not (odds ratio, 8.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-74.9) (P =.02). After multivariate logistic regression, the 2 variables independently associated with good glycemic control were higher health literacy levels (odds ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-14.47) (P =.04) and physicians' application of the interactive communication strategy (odds ratio, 15.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-110.78) (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians caring for patients with diabetes mellitus and low functional health literacy rarely assessed patient recall or comprehension of new concepts. Overlooking this step in communication reflects a missed opportunity that may have important clinical implications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.163.1.83

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 1,162

Metadata

Authors
Schillinger, D., Piette, J., Grumbach, K., Wang, F., Wilson, C., Daher, C., Leong-Grotz, K., Castro, C., & Bindman, A. B.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2003-01-13
Volume
163
Issue
1
Pages
83
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2011761219
Cited by
1,162
References
45
FWCI
63.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Closing the Loop: Physician Communication With Diabetic Patients Who Have Low Health Literacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.163.1.83
The paper
Schillinger, D., Piette, J., Grumbach, K., Wang, F., Wilson, C., Daher, C., Leong-Grotz, K., Castro, C., & Bindman, A. B. (2003). Closing the Loop: Physician Communication With Diabetic Patients Who Have Low Health Literacy. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.1.83

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.