Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association of Health Literacy With Diabetes Outcomes

Schillinger, Dean·2002·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Health literacy is a measure of patients' ability to read, comprehend, and act on medical instructions. Poor health literacy is common among racial and ethnic minorities, elderly persons, and patients with chronic conditions, particularly in public-sector settings. Little is known about the extent to which health literacy affects clinical health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between health literacy and diabetes outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional observational study of 408 English- and Spanish-speaking patients who were older than 30 years and had type 2 diabetes identified from the clinical database of 2 primary care clinics of a university-affiliated public hospital in San Francisco, Calif. Participants were enrolled and completed questionnaires between June and December 2000. We assessed patients' health literacy by using the short-form Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (s-TOFHLA) in English or Spanish. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Most recent hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) level. Patients were classified as having tight glycemic control if their HbA(1c) was in the lowest quartile and poor control if it was in the highest quartile. We also measured the presence of self-reported diabetes complications. RESULTS: After adjusting for patients' sociodemographic characteristics, depressive symptoms, social support, treatment regimen, and years with diabetes, for each 1-point decrement in s-TOFHLA score, the HbA(1c) value increased by 0.02 (P =.02). Patients with inadequate health literacy were less likely than patients with adequate health literacy to achieve tight glycemic control (HbA(1c) < or = 7.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-1.00; P =.05) and were more likely to have poor glycemic control (HbA(1c) > or = 9.5%; adjusted OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.11-3.73; P =.02) and to report having retinopathy (adjusted OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.19-4.57; P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among primary care patients with type 2 diabetes, inadequate health literacy is independently associated with worse glycemic control and higher rates of retinopathy. Inadequate health literacy may contribute to the disproportionate burden of diabetes-related problems among disadvantaged populations. Efforts should focus on developing and evaluating interventions to improve diabetes outcomes among patients with inadequate health literacy.

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/jama.288.4.475

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,938

Metadata

Authors
Schillinger, D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2002-07-24
Volume
288
Issue
4
Pages
475
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2046954222
Cited by
1,938
References
3
FWCI
82.26
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: Association of Health Literacy With Diabetes Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.288.4.475
The paper
Schillinger, D. (2002). Association of Health Literacy With Diabetes Outcomes. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.4.475

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.