Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35586544›Full record

ArticleJournal of health monitoring2018

First results from the study 'Disease knowledge and information needs - Diabetes mellitus (2017)'.

Rebecca Paprott, Christin Heidemann, Lena M Stühmann, Jens Baumert, Yong Du, Sylvia Hansen, Marie-Luise Zeisler, Johannes Lemcke, Silke Beyhl, Ronny Kuhnert and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health monitoring, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Ad hoc surveys at the Robert Koch Institute.Journal of health monitoring · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rebecca PaprottRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Christin HeidemannRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Lena M StühmannCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute for Medical Sociology.
Jens BaumertRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Yong DuRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Sylvia HansenFederal Centre for Health Education, Cologne Office for National Education and Communication on Diabetes Mellitus.
Marie-Luise ZeislerRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Johannes LemckeRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Silke BeyhlRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Ronny KuhnertRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Christian SchmidtRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Lars GabrysRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Andrea TetiUniversity of Vechta Institute for Gerontology.
Thomas ZieseRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Patrick SchmichRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Paul GellertCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute for Medical Sociology.
Daniela ZahnFederal Centre for Health Education, Cologne Office for National Education and Communication on Diabetes Mellitus.
Christa Scheidt-NaveRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Robert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Very little research has been undertaken into what people in Germany know about diabetes, the information they may require about the condition, where they look for such information and how they rate the information currently available. In 2017, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) carried out a nationwide telephone survey aimed at answering these questions. The study entitled 'Disease knowledge and information needs - Diabetes mellitus (2017)' focused on people aged at least 18 years. A total of 2,327 people without diabetes and 1,479 people with diagnosed diabetes were interviewed for the study. First results show that 56.7% of people without diabetes and 92.8% of those with diabetes rate their knowledge about the condition as 'very good' or 'good'. People without diabetes were found to have the strongest need for information in terms of 'lifestyle changes, health promotion and disease prevention', whereas respondents with diabetes stressed the strongest need for information about 'treatment and therapy'. Almost a third of respondents without diabetes have actively sought information about diabetes at least once, mostly via print media. Patients with diabetes stated that their general practitioner was their most frequent source of information about the condition. In both groups, about half of respondents reported that they found it difficult to judge the trustworthiness of the information published in the media about diabetes. The results of the study form part of the German National Diabetes Surveillance, which is coordinated by the RKI. The data are also intended to be used by the Federal Centre for Health Education to develop a strategy to improve the information provided about diabetes.

Indexed as

DIABETES MELLITUSDISEASE KNOWLEDGEDISEASE PERCEPTIONINFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOURTELEPHONE SURVEY

Identifiers

PMID35586544
PMCPMC8852783
OpenAlexW4299891021

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.