HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gerber, B. S. Articles by Eiser, A. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gerber, B. S. Articles by Eiser, A. R. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Implementation and Evaluation of a Low-Literacy Diabetes Education Computer Multimedia Application

¹ Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
² Maine Center for Diabetes, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine
³ Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Evaluation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
⁴ Jesse Brown VA Medical Center and VA Midwest Center for Health Services and Policy Research, Chicago, Illinois
⁵ Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
⁶ Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
⁷ Division of Clinical Education, Drexel University College of Medicine and Mercy Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ben Gerber, MD, Department of Medicine (M/C 718), University of Illinois, 840 South Wood St., Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail: bgerber{at}uic.edu

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
OBJECTIVE—To evaluate a clinic-based multimedia intervention for diabetes education targeting individuals with low health literacy levels in a diverse population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Five public clinics in Chicago, Illinois, participated in the study with computer kiosks installed in waiting room areas. Two hundred forty-four subjects with diabetes were randomized to receive either supplemental computer multimedia use (intervention) or standard of care only (control). The intervention includes audio/video sequences to communicate information, provide psychological support, and promote diabetes self-management skills without extensive text or complex navigation. HbA_1c (A1C), BMI, blood pressure, diabetes knowledge, self-efficacy, self-reported medical care, and perceived susceptibility of complications were evaluated at baseline and 1 year. Computer usage patterns and implementation barriers were also examined.

RESULTS—Complete 1-year data were available for 183 subjects (75%). Overall, there were no significant differences in change in A1C, weight, blood pressure, knowledge, self-efficacy, or self-reported medical care between intervention and control groups. However, there was an increase in perceived susceptibility to diabetes complications in the intervention group. This effect was greatest among subjects with lower health literacy. Within the intervention group, time spent on the computer was greater for subjects with higher health literacy.

CONCLUSIONS—Access to multimedia lessons resulted in an increase in perceived susceptibility to diabetes complications, particularly in subjects with lower health literacy. Despite measures to improve informational access for individuals with lower health literacy, there was relatively less use of the computer among these participants.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
There is a growing awareness of the impact of low health literacy on diabetes (1,2). Low health literacy poses a major barrier to education and self-management (3). Health literacy directly impacts health outcomes, such as hospitalization risk, particularly in those with chronic diseases (4,5). In one cross-sectional study (5) measuring the health literacy level of type 2 diabetic patients, patients with inadequate health literacy were less likely than those with adequate health literacy to achieve tight glycemic control. However, there is limited data from longitudinal studies regarding the impact of health literacy on changes in clinical outcomes over time (2).

Despite increasing concern about the impact of low health literacy on diabetes care, there are few proven interventions available that address low health literacy (6). Recent evidence (6,7) suggests that diabetes education improves self-management and glycemic control in those with limited health literacy. Simultaneously, clinicians are faced with less time and resources for disseminating information. Regular attendance in diabetes education classes is disappointingly low, particularly for those with lower socioeconomic status and those who have yet to develop diabetes complications (8). Additional barriers, including cultural factors and the inability to speak English, further complicate educational initiatives in diverse urban populations (9–11).

To overcome these challenges, a new computer-based multimedia application for individuals with diabetes was created ("Living Well with Diabetes"). The program utilizes extensive audio and video to supply information, provide psychological support, and promote diabetes self-management skills without text or complex navigation. The application was available on touch-screen computers in clinical waiting areas for patients to utilize before appointments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of computer-based education in the clinical setting through a randomized controlled trial.

A secondary objective was to evaluate the barriers and facilitators to implementing computer-based education. Prior research (12,13) designed to improve diabetes self-management often have not been generalizable beyond local environments. Well-controlled trials frequently included selected motivated subjects and did not adequately address lack of system resources, alterations in clinical flow, and clinical staff having competing obligations (14). In this study, subjects and clinical staff identified key considerations important for adopting computer-based learning in the clinical environment.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Setting
Five urban outpatient clinics participated from June 2002 through October 2003. Each site received a personal computer with touch screen for patient access (installed to run continuously as a kiosk). Computers were placed in waiting areas with headphones available.

Medical assistants routinely asked patients if they had diabetes. During recruitment, patients with diabetes were invited to participate. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, self-reported history of type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and verbal fluency in English or Spanish. Subjects were excluded if they were not directly involved with their own diabetes care. Among the 313 patients referred for participation, 11 were excluded because they never used the study computer, and 58 refused participation, leaving 244 study subjects (Fig. 1). Reasons cited for declining participation included lack of time, lack of interest in computer use, acute illness, and no need for additional diabetes education.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1— Participant flow. Lower literacy defined as S-TOFHLA score 0–22 (inadequate and marginal) and higher literacy was defined as S-TOFHLA score 23.

The program was available on touch-screen personal computers. Navigation was provided through a simplified interface, including forward/backward buttons for user control. Advanced features included "pop-up" supplementary text information or additional testimonials related to the concurrent screen concept. After each lesson, approximately 10 randomly sequenced multiple choice questions were presented for reinforcement. Individuals who incorrectly answered questions received immediate audio feedback. The average time for lesson completion ranged between 10 and 20 min.

Control
A second multimedia application was developed for the control group. This group received simple multiple-choice quizzes on diabetes-related concepts. Unlike the intervention program, the control application did not include formal narrative instruction or testimonials.

Design
Institutional review board approval was granted through the University of Illinois at Chicago. Surveys were performed via face-to-face interviews. Following completion of baseline weight, blood pressure, A1C measurements, and survey assessments, subjects were introduced to the computer. A bilingual research assistant provided initial instruction regarding usage, with input provided through the touch-screen monitor. Participants were randomly assigned by computer to one of two groups: the multimedia intervention group and the standard-of-care (control) group. The intervention group had access to the "Living Well with Diabetes" multimedia application, while the control group only had access to quizzes. Both groups were invited to use the computer as often as they would like during the following year and were encouraged to use it before or following visits with their providers. Subjects received compensation based on computer usage. Each day the computer was accessed, a subject received $5 per day (maximum $25 for five interactions over 1 year). Survey measurements and clinical data were repeated at 1 year. Upon study completion, a brief questionnaire was administered to obtain feedback regarding the subjects’ computer experience. Subjects were considered to have completed the study if they underwent the year-end interviews and used the computer at least once.

Dependent measures
Subjects were offered the option of completing survey materials in English or Spanish. All surveys (excluding the literacy test) were conducted by face-to-face interview. Health literacy was evaluated through the S-TOFHLA (short form, 14-point font) literacy test in the subject’s preferred language (19). The literacy score minimum is 0 and maximum is 36. Survey data included adapted knowledge and self-reported medical care scales previously developed and validated using Rasch modeling (20). The medical care questionnaire included items based on the American Diabetes Association standards of medical care in diabetes (21). Subjects were asked if they underwent specialist evaluations (e.g., dilated eye exam), laboratory studies (e.g., A1C), and immunizations (influenza and pneumococcal vaccines) in the previous year (scored as "yes", "no", or "don’t know"). A 12-question self-efficacy scale was administered based on a similar scale developed for Spanish-speaking Latino populations (22) (adapted from the Insulin Management Diabetes Self-efficacy Scale [23]). Perceived susceptibility to complications was assessed by subjects evaluating their risk of diabetes complications on a scale from 1 to 10 (with 10 having the greatest risk) (24). Clinical data included fingerstick testing for A1C (A1C, Bayer DCA 2000 analyzer; range 2.5–14.0%). Weight, height, and blood pressure information were acquired from concurrent clinical visit data. BMI was computed as weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared. Study computers in the clinics recorded usage information for individual users, which was converted into time spent logged in and number of distinct computer sessions.

Statistical analysis
Analyses were performed on all complete cases using SPSS Version 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Rasch models were created to determine person-measures of survey data (knowledge, self-efficacy, and medical care) using Winsteps (Chicago, IL) (25–27).

Health literacy scores were dichotomized to lower–and higher–health literacy subgroups, by combining inadequate (0–16) and marginal (17–22) scores together, as both groups share very limited computer experience. A similar threshold has also previously been applied (7,28). At baseline, we compared patients by group assignment and literacy subgroup using t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables and ² or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. A similar approach was used to evaluate factors related to attrition by comparing subjects who completed the study with those who dropped out.

The primary outcome was change in A1C over the 1-year study period. A repeated-measures general linear model analysis was performed. Analyses of the primary outcome included adjustment for baseline covariates if differences were found between groups at baseline (with P < 0.20 criterion). The following covariates were included in the model: age, sex, Latino race, income, insulin therapy, duration of disease, and previous attendance in diabetes class. Receiving information to read about diabetes and visiting a dietitian both correlated with diabetes class attendance and thus were not included in the model. Subject characteristics such as language spoken, insurance, clinical site, and highest education level attained were also associated with other included covariates. Results were very similar for unadjusted and adjusted analyses (the adjusted analyses are presented).

Similar analyses were conducted to evaluate intervention effects on changes in secondary clinical and survey outcomes. Group-by-time interactions were evaluated for all outcomes. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. To detect a 0.5% difference in A1C level at 1 year, a total sample size of 198 was necessary to retain a power of 0.8 with an error of 0.05 (two tailed). The target sample size for enrollment was increased to 250 subjects, adjusting for anticipated attrition. The sample size was not powered to detect differences by literacy status.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Of 244 enrolled patients, 183 (75%) completed the 1-year trial. Subjects who dropped out had lower self-reported medical care measures at baseline (–0.51 vs. 0.029, P = 0.013) and were more likely uninsured (59 vs. 35%, P = 0.001). No differences were detected by baseline A1C, previous computer use by history, or literacy group.

Subject characteristics
Demographic and diabetes education–related variables are summarized in Table 1. Based on health literacy testing, 56% in the intervention group and 55% in the control group had low health literacy. The intervention and control groups were of similar lower socioeconomic status; however, the control group reported greater attendance at diabetes classes and dietitian visits, more subjects receiving educational information, and more subjects on insulin therapy. Lower-literacy subjects were more likely to be older, Latino, Spanish speaking, less educated, uninsured, and have lower income levels. They also were more likely to use insulin and less likely to own or ever have used a computer. While individuals with lower literacy had lower scores on diabetes knowledge assessments, there were no other significant differences in clinical characteristics at baseline.

Survey outcomes
Overall changes in self-efficacy, knowledge, and medical care showed no differences for the intervention and control groups (Table 1). However, change in perceived susceptibility to complications was greater for intervention subjects, who reported an increased personal risk of having eye, kidney, or heart disease (1.19 vs. 0.24, P = 0.009). The greatest difference in perceived susceptibility was in lower–health literacy subjects (1.48 vs. 0.19, P = 0.016). While there was also change in the higher–health literacy group, this was not statistically significant (0.76 vs. 0.29 for intervention and control groups, P = 0.267). Among individuals with lower health literacy, there was a trend toward greater improvement in self-efficacy for the intervention group (1.51 vs. 0.99, P = 0.113). Among individuals with higher health literacy, there was no significant difference in self-efficacy gain. Medical care improved over time (P = 0.012 for time interaction) but without an intervention effect for either lower- or higher-literacy groups.

Computer use
Recorded computer usage was analyzed for all 244 subjects. Mean time duration with the computer was greater for the intervention group (53.5 vs. 21.3 min, P = 0.001). The number of individual sessions during the study period was slightly greater for the intervention group but was not statistically different (2.9 vs. 2.3 sessions, P = 0.121). Within the intervention group, there was greater computer use among higher–health literacy participants (81.0 vs. 44.1 min, P = 0.006 and 4.0 vs. 2.1 sessions, P = 0.002). There was also a positive correlation between health literacy score and total time spent on computer (Spearman’s = 0.284, P = 0.005).

Subject feedback on computer use
Despite 74.3% of subjects describing an overall lack of experience with computers, 74.9% found the program easy to use (65.0% for lower-literacy vs. 87.5% for higher-literacy participants). Among participating clinical sites, total subject usage of the computer varied greatly (ranging from 6.5 to 32.6 h per location). For the intervention group, average computer time ranged from 19.5 to 116.7 min per subject per site. Several lifestyle changes were self-reportedly enhanced by computer use: diet, exercise, smoking cessation, cutting nails, and home glucose monitoring. Four common barriers to computer use were identified: lack of prompting by clinical staff, time constraints, availability of technology, and personal factors (e.g., difficulty in using the computer).

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The computer-based multimedia intervention was successfully implemented in the clinical environment and resulted in a greater level of perceived susceptibility to diabetes-related complications but without improvement in glycemic control. There are several possible explanations for the latter negative finding. First, the intervention did not address provider factors such as intensification of therapy (or "clinical inertia") (29,30). Second, the average A1C was relatively low at baseline (8.2%). The study did not incorporate a minimum A1C criterion in order to facilitate recruitment of a diverse population in a clinical setting and included individuals recently diagnosed with diabetes but unable to attend classes. In comparison, a similar approach using touch-screen computers in waiting rooms focused on dietary barriers had no effect on A1C or weight (31). Another randomized trial was conducted using tailored diabetes self-management training and support delivered via the Internet (14,32). This study demonstrated no significant change in A1C, though the intervention targeted exercise behavior and not glycemic control.

The intervention in the present study did result in significant improvement in A1C among low–health literacy subjects with poor glycemic control (A1C 9.0%). While this represents a fraction of the enrolled sample, it supports a potential indication for multimedia use, since few interventions specifically address low health literacy for patients with inadequately treated diabetes (33). Indeed, the multimedia users with lower health literacy demonstrated gains in knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived susceptibility to complications compared with those having higher health literacy. Further research is necessary targeting individuals with poor glycemic control.

There are several mechanisms by which the multimedia may impact users. Prominent features of the educational application include video-recorded patient testimonials and interactive assessments that provide immediate feedback to users. Realistic role models may encourage vicarious learning through imitation. Also, skill building of glucose monitoring, insulin injection, and lifestyle modification are promoted. The use of video-recorded testimonials including persons with visual defects, kidney disease, amputations, and other complications of diabetes may elevate perceived susceptibility to complications among viewers. These testimonials highlight the benefits of self-care and discuss potential solutions to barriers. The additional use of positive feedback may increase self-efficacy via verbal persuasion through testimonial and narrator encouragement (34,35). The psychological impact of these features may be explained by various social and psychological health behavior change models, including Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Rosenstock’s expanded Health Belief Model (36–38). In the setting of high perceived susceptibility to complications, behavioral change may occur if perceived benefits and barriers are subsequently addressed, particularly for those individuals having a greater sense of competence (or self-efficaciousness) to implement change (37).

The intervention also addresses the "digital divide." This disparity not only represents differential access to computer technology and the Internet, but it also describes personal characteristics that separate users from nonusers of electronic information (39). In this study, while 34% of individuals with lower health literacy owned a computer, only 5% state that they had previously used a computer (compared with 49% of the higher–health literacy group). Additionally, 55% of tested subjects had inadequate or marginal health literacy, similar to other estimates of urban populations (3). Access to technology will not effectively enable dissemination of consumer health information if the content is unreadable. The developed multimedia addresses many of the needs and preferences of low-income and underserved Americans concerning content: information provided on a basic health literacy level, content for non-English speakers, and culturally defined content (40). Furthermore, the implementation of touch-screen monitors offers an alternative to keyboard and mouse for computer input, which may hold value for individuals who are older, have lower health literacy, or have less computer experience (41,42).

Based on our experience, there are several challenges to moving forward with computer-based interventions. Despite efforts made to improve computer usability, there was less use by lower–health literacy participants. As the technology was installed in the clinical setting, unexpected issues arose. The optimal location for computer accessibility was often uncertain. Making the computers visible, freely available, and accessible (meeting the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act) was challenging in crowded waiting areas. Unfortunately, privacy is sacrificed when a computer is more centrally located within a clinic. Finally, the availability of computers may be limited for those waiting for others to finish use or when the computers malfunction.

Prompting, instruction, repetition, and support were key factors in computer use. Staff encouragement and initial assistance improved acceptance; however, changing staff behaviors in busy clinical environments is challenging. Bilingual research assistants provided brief initial instruction to users, which has been helpful particularly in locations lacking bilingual staff. Multimedia audiovisual prompting was found to be necessary for continued use. However, repeated sessions may require external prompting by staff, either through verbal reminders or provider recommendations for computer-based learning.

Strengths of this study include a randomized controlled study design carried out in a "real-world" setting. In addition, the intervention was evaluated in a population consisting of many individuals with low health literacy and who only speak Spanish. However, there were also several limitations to the study. Despite efforts in improving accessibility using touch-screen hardware and audiovisual media, there was less computer use among elderly and lower–health literacy participants, possibly dampening the potential effect of the intervention. More recent experience indicates much greater use and acceptance with a volunteer or family member helping to navigate the computer. Given that the study design involved five different clinical sites, various concurrent organizational-based and public health measures may have affected outcomes. Other studies of independent interventions (including the use of bilingual health educators and promoters/community lay workers) on minority groups are potential effect modifiers. Also, the study design was limited in its inability to include the collection of behaviorally relevant data, such as adherence to clinic visits or annual eye examinations. Thus, specific self-management improvements demonstrating behavioral change in response to specific multimedia lessons are difficult to estimate.

In conclusion, a new diabetes education multimedia application has been developed and successfully implemented in clinical waiting areas, targeting a vulnerable population. Individuals using the program had higher perceived susceptibility to complications but no change in glycemic control. Despite measures to improve access to individuals with lower health literacy, there was relatively less use of the computer among these participants. However, the intervention did result in significant improvement in A1C among low–health literacy subjects with poor glycemic control. Additional personal and organizational barriers must be addressed in conjunction with provider involvement to improve usability. This may increase the impact of computer-based education on behavioral and clinical outcomes.

	Acknowledgments

 
Support was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U18 HS11092). A.M.A. is supported by a research career development grant from the Health Services Research and Development Section of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The authors wish to acknowledge Mariela Girotti, RN; Lourdes Pelaez, MD; Lori Brodsky, FNP, CDE; and Edgar Diaz for their contribution to multimedia development and study protocol.

	Footnotes

 
A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

Received for publication January 3, 2005. Accepted for publication April 6, 2005.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 

1. Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Peel J, Baker DW: Health literacy and knowledge of chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns 51:267–275, 2003[Medline]
   
2. Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, Sheridan SL, Lohr KN, Lux L, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Bonito AJ: Literacy and health outcomes, summary, evidence report. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004 (Tech. Assessment no. 87)
   
3. Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, Nurss JR: Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their chronic disease: a study of patients with hypertension and diabetes. Arch Intern Med 158:166–172, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
4. Baker DW: Reading between the lines: deciphering the connections between literacy and health. J Gen Intern Med 14:315–317, 1999[Medline]
   
5. Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, Wang F, Osmond D, Daher C, Palacios J, Sullivan GD, Bindman AB: Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA 288:475–482, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Rothman R, Malone R, Bryant B, Horlen C, DeWalt D, Pignone M: The relationship between literacy and glycemic control in a diabetes disease-management program. Diabetes Educ 30:263–273, 2004[Free Full Text]
   
7. Kim S, Love F, Quistberg DA, Shea JA: Association of health literacy with self-management behavior in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:2980–2982, 2004[Free Full Text]
   
8. Coonrod BA, Betschart J, Harris MI: Frequency and determinants of diabetes patient education among adults in the U.S. population. Diabetes Care 17:852–858, 1994[Abstract]
   
9. Brown SA, Garcia AA, Kouzekanani K, Hanis CL: Culturally competent diabetes self-management education for Mexican Americans: the Starr County Border Health Initiative. Diabetes Care 25:259–268, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
10. Woloshin S, Bickell NA, Schwartz LM, Gany F, Welch HG: Language barriers in medicine in the United States. JAMA 273:724–728, 1995[Medline]
    
11. Walsh ME, Katz MA, Sechrest L: Unpacking cultural factors in adaptation to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med Care 40:I129–I139, 2002[Medline]
    
12. Narayan KM, Gregg EW, Engelgau MM, Moore B, Thompson TJ, Williamson DF, Vinicor F: Translation research for chronic disease: the case of diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:1794–1798, 2000[Free Full Text]
    
13. Starfield B: Quality-of-care research: internal elegance and external relevance. JAMA 280:1006–1008, 1998[Free Full Text]
    
14. Glasgow RE, Boles SM, McKay HG, Feil EG, Barrera M Jr: The D-Net diabetes self-management program: long-term implementation, outcomes, and generalization results. Prev Med 36:410–419, 2003[Medline]
    
15. Driscoll M: Gagne’s theory of instruction. In Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon, 1994, p. 329–358
    
16. Merrill D: Component Display Theory. In Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Reigeluth CM, Ed. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983, p. 279–333
    
17. Gagné RM, Briggs LJ, Wager WW: Principles of Instructional Design. Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich College Publishers, 1992
    
18. Atkinson NL, Gold RS: The promise and challenge of eHealth interventions. Am J Health Behav 26:494–503, 2002[Medline]
    
19. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR: The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 10:537–541, 1995[Medline]
    
20. Gerber B, Smith EV Jr, Girotti M, Pelaez L, Lawless K, Smolin L, Brodsky I, Eiser A: Using Rasch measurement to investigate the cross-form equivalence and clinical utility of Spanish and English versions of a diabetes questionnaire: a pilot study. J Appl Meas 3:243–271, 2002[Medline]
    
21. American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 28:S4–S36, 2005[Free Full Text]
    
22. Bernal H, Woolley S, Schensul JJ, Dickinson JK: Correlates of self-efficacy in diabetes self-care among Hispanic adults with diabetes. Diabetes Educ 26:673–680, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
23. Hurley A: The Insulin Management Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale. In The Measurement of Clinical and Educational Nursing Outcomes: Measuring Clients’ Self-Care and Coping Skills. Waltz C, Strickland, OL, Eds. New York, Springer, 1990
    
24. Lewis KS, Bradley C: Measures of Diabetes-Specific Health Beliefs. In Handbook of Psychology and Diabetes. Bradley C, Ed. London, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994
    
25. Wright BD, Mok M: Rasch models overview. J Appl Meas 1:83–106, 2000[Medline]
    
26. Conrad KJ, Smith EV Jr: International conference on objective measurement: applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care 42:I1–I6, 2004[Medline]
    
27. Linacre JM: Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago, WINSTEPS, 2004. Available from www.winsteps.com. Accessed 2 January 2005
    
28. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ: Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 36:588–594, 2004[Medline]
    
29. Miller CD, Barnes CS, Phillips LS, Ziemer DC, Gallina DL, Cook CB, Maryman SD, El-Kebbi IM: Rapid A1C availability improves clinical decision-making in an urban primary care clinic. Diabetes Care 26:1158–1163, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
30. Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, Doyle JP, El-Kebbi IM, Gallina DL, Miller CD, Ziemer DC, Barnes CS: Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 135:825–834, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
31. Glasgow RE, La Chance PA, Toobert DJ, Brown J, Hampson SE, Riddle MC: Long-term effects and costs of brief behavioural dietary intervention for patients with diabetes delivered from the medical office. Patient Educ Couns 32:175–184, 1997[Medline]
    
32. McKay HG, King D, Eakin EG, Seeley JR, Glasgow RE: The diabetes network internet-based physical activity intervention: a randomized pilot study. Diabetes Care 24:1328–1334, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
33. Rothman RL, DeWalt DA, Malone R, Bryant B, Shintani A, Crigler B, Weinberger M, Pignone M: Influence of patient literacy on the effectiveness of a primary care-based diabetes disease management program. JAMA 292:1711–1716, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
34. Street RL, Gold WR, Manning T: Health Promotion and Interactive Technology. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997
    
35. Witte K: Fishing for success: using the persuasive health message framework to generate effective campaign messages. In Designing Health Messages: Approaches from Communication Theory and Public Health Practice. Mailbach EW, Louiselle R, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1995
    
36. Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1986
    
37. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH: Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q 15:175–183, 1988[Medline]
    
38. Kinzie MB: Instructional design strategies for health behavior change. Patient Educ Couns 56:3–15, 2005[Medline]
    
39. Bush NE, Bowen DJ, Wooldridge J, Ludwig A, Meischke H, Robbins R: What do we mean by Internet access? A framework for health researchers. Preventing Chronic Disease [serial online], 2004. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0019.htm. Accessed 2 January 2005
    
40. Lazarus W, Mora F: Online content for low-income and underserved Americans, the digital divide’s new frontier: a strategic audit of activities and opportunities. The Children’s Partnership, 2000. Available from http://www.childrenspartnership.org/pub/low_income.pdf. Accessed 2 January 2005
    
41. Pearson J, Jones R, Cawsey A, McGregor S, Barrett A, Gilmour H, Atkinson J, McEwen J: The accessibility of information systems for patients: use of touchscreen information systems by 345 patients with cancer in Scotland. Proc AMIA Symp 594–598, 1999
    
42. Hahn EA, Cella D, Dobrez D, Shiomoto G, Marcus E, Taylor SG, Vohra M, Chang CH, Wright BD, Linacre JM, Weiss BD, Valenzuela V, Chiang HL, Webster K: The talking touchscreen: a new approach to outcomes assessment in low literacy. Psychooncology 13:86–95, 2004[Medline]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Lorig, P. L. Ritter, F. Villa, and J. D. Piette Spanish Diabetes Self-Management With and Without Automated Telephone Reinforcement: Two randomized trials Diabetes Care, March 1, 2008; 31(3): 408 - 414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Terre Behavioral Medicine Review: Strategic Management of Diabetes Risk American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, October 1, 2007; 1(5): 351 - 355. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. E. Peek, A. Cargill, and E. S. Huang Diabetes Health Disparities: A Systematic Review of Health Care Interventions Med Care Res Rev, October 1, 2007; 64(5_suppl): 101S - 156S. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. A. Piatt, T. J. Orchard, S. Emerson, D. Simmons, T. J. Songer, M. M. Brooks, M. Korytkowski, L. M. Siminerio, U. Ahmad, and J. C. Zgibor Translating the Chronic Care Model Into the Community: Results from a randomized controlled trial of a multifaceted diabetes care intervention Diabetes Care, April 1, 2006; 29(4): 811 - 817. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Sarkar, L. Fisher, and D. Schillinger Is Self-Efficacy Associated With Diabetes Self-Management Across Race/Ethnicity and Health Literacy? Diabetes Care, April 1, 2006; 29(4): 823 - 829. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Glasgow, P. A. Nutting, D. J. Toobert, D. K. King, L. A. Strycker, M. Jex, C. O'Neill, H. Whitesides, and J. Merenich Effects of a brief computer-assisted diabetes self-management intervention on dietary, biological and quality-of-life outcomes Chronic Illness, March 1, 2006; 2(1): 27 - 38. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gerber, B. S. Articles by Eiser, A. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gerber, B. S. Articles by Eiser, A. R. Social Bookmarking                What's this?