ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
Identifying Individuals with Highest Social Risk in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Using Item Response Theory.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profiles of Social Determinants of Health and Change in Diabetes Status Among U.S. Hispanic/Latino Adults: HCHS/SOL, 2008-2024.Diabetes care · 2026Article
- Psychometric Validation of the Chinese Version of the Diabetes Health Literacy Scale Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Application of Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this analysis was to create a parsimonious tool to screen for high social risk using item response theory to discriminate across social risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes.
methodsCross-sectional data of 615 adults with diabetes recruited from two primary care clinics were used. Participants completed assessments including validated scales on economic instability (financial hardship), neighborhood and built environment (crime, violence, neighborhood rating), education (highest education, health literacy), food environment (food insecurity), social and community context (social isolation), and psychological risk factors (perceived stress, depression, serious psychological distress, diabetes distress). Item response theory (IRT) models were used to understand the association between a participant's underlying level of a particular social risk factor and the probability of that response. A two-parameter logistic IRT model was used with each of the 12 social determinant factors being added as a separate parameter in the model. Higher values in item discrimination indicate better ability of a specific social risk factor in differentiating participants from each other.
resultsRate of crime reported in a neighborhood (discrimination 3.13, SE 0.50; item difficulty - 0.68, SE 0.07) and neighborhood rating (discrimination 4.02, SE 0.87; item difficulty - 1.04, SE 0.08) had the highest discrimination.
conclusionsBased on these findings, crime and neighborhood rating discriminate best between individuals with type 2 diabetes who have high social risk and those with low social risk. These two questions can be used as a parsimonious social risk screening tool to identify high social risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.