ArticleBMJ open2024
Preferred sources of information on diabetes prevention programmes: a population-based cross-sectional study in Poland.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Drivers of Missed Healthcare Appointments in Poland: Insights From a 2025 Survey.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Employee expectations towards employer-provided workplace health promotion and mental health support: a 2025 cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Public knowledge of air pollution sources and its health effects: a 2025 cross-sectional survey on a representative sample of adults in Poland.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Awareness of mental disorders and their risk factors - a nationwide cross-sectional survey among adults in Poland.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyse preferred sources of information on diabetes prevention programmes and to identify sociodemographic determinants influencing these preferences among adults in Poland.
designA cross-sectional survey was carried out between 15 and 18 September 2023 using a computer-assisted web interview. A self-prepared questionnaire included 10 questions on sources of information on type 2 diabetes prevention.
participantsData were obtained from 1046 adults (18-82 years); 53.4% were females.
resultsMost respondents preferred email communication (46.4%), followed by a doctor or nurse (33.5%), and a letter or leaflet directly delivered to the mailbox (25.8%) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) prevention information. Younger respondents were more likely to indicate mass media (OR=1.81, 95% CI=1.12 to 2.95, p=0.01) and digital media (OR=1.65, 95% CI=1.02 to 2.67, p=0.04) as a source of information on DM2 prevention. Those who had higher education (OR=1.51, 95% CI=1.16 to 1.96, p=0.002), as well as those with chronic diseases (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.14 to 1.97, p=0.004), were more likely to indicate digital media. Out of 10 different variables analysed in this study, passive occupational status (OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.04 to 1.96, p=0.03) as well as having chronic diseases (OR=1.51, 95% CI=1.16 to 1.96, p=0.002) were associated with higher odds of indicating healthcare workers as a preferred source of information. Marital status, having children, place of residence, household characteristics and financial status do not significantly decide communication preferences.
conclusionCommunication on DM2 prevention should be adjusted to public preferences and expectations. Tailoring interventions to different demographic groups can enhance outreach and engagement. Email emerged as a popular choice, suggesting the potential of digital communication in preventive health programmes.
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.