ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Health literacy assessment and analysis of influencing factors in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus in Southwest China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Article
- The Association Between Health Literacy and General Health in Women With Gestational Diabetes: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of research in health sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The main objectives of our study are evaluating the health literacy level among women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Southwest China and explore the influencing factors, using a multidimensional health literacy assessment scale (Chinese version of the HLS-14). Given that the HLS-14 has not been used in GDM previously, its reliability and validity testing was included as a secondary objective. Method: It was a cross-sectional survey with 565 GDM pregnancies. The Maternal and child health information access questionnaire, Chinese version of the HLS-14, Perceived Social Support Scale (PSSS) and General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) was used to collect health information access behaviors, health literacy, social support and self-efficacy levels, respectively. SPSS 21.0 was used for descriptive statistical, multiple stepwise linear regression analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Amos 26.0 was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: The Chinese version of HLS-14 has good reliability and validity in GDM pregnancies. The Cronbach's α are 0.849, 0.866, 0.859, and 0.883, respectively. The exploratory factor analysis extracted three common factors with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 68.405%. The confirmatory factor analysis model fit was good (χ Conclusion: The Chinese version of the HLS-14 has good applicability in the GDM pregnancies. The HL level of them is moderate, needs to be improved. Healthcare professionals should focus on the GDM population with low family income and high pre-pregnancy BMI, fully mobilize their social support system, provide reliable access to information, encourage all GDM pregnancies to use pregnancy management diaries to record their self-management behaviors, and ensure the effectiveness of health education.
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.