Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influence of Patient Literacy on the Effectiveness of a Primary Care–Based Diabetes Disease Management Program

Rothman, Russell L.·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Low literacy is an important barrier for patients with diabetes, but interventions to address low literacy have not been well examined. OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of literacy on the effectiveness of a comprehensive disease management program for patients with diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of the influence of literacy on glycemic control and systolic blood pressure using data from a randomized controlled trial (conducted from February 2001 through April 2003) of a comprehensive diabetes management program. Participants were 217 patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] levels > or =8.0%) and presenting to a US academic general internal medicine practice. INTERVENTIONS: All communication to patients was individualized and delivered to enhance comprehension among patients with low literacy. Intervention patients received intensive disease management from a multidisciplinary team. Control patients received an initial management session and continued with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achievement of goal HbA1c levels and systolic blood pressure at 12-month follow-up for control and intervention patients stratified by literacy status. RESULTS: Complete 12-month data were available for 193 patients (89%). Among patients with low literacy, intervention patients were more likely than control patients to achieve goal HbA1c levels (< or =7.0%) (42% vs 15%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 17.2; P = .02). Patients with higher literacy had similar odds of achieving goal HbA1c levels regardless of intervention status (24% vs 23%; adjusted OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.5; P = .98). Improvements in systolic blood pressure were similar by literacy status. CONCLUSIONS: Literacy may be an important factor for predicting who will benefit from an intervention for diabetes management. A diabetes disease management program that addresses literacy may be particularly beneficial for patients with low literacy, and increasing access to such a program could help reduce health disparities.

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.292.14.1711

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
Rothman, R. L.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-10-13
Volume
292
Issue
14
Pages
1711
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2043740403
Cited by
395
References
28
FWCI
9.35
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: Influence of Patient Literacy on the Effectiveness of a Primary Care–Based Diabetes Disease Management Program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.292.14.1711
The paper
Rothman, R. L. (2004). Influence of Patient Literacy on the Effectiveness of a Primary Care–Based Diabetes Disease Management Program. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.14.1711

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.