Influence of Digital Health Literacy on Blood Pressure and Hemoglobin A1c in Patients With Comorbid Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital health literacy is emerging as an important element in chronic illness management, yet its relationship with clinical outcomes remains unclear. Utilizing data from the ongoing EXpanding Technology-Enabled, Nurse-Delivered Chronic Disease Care trial, this cross-sectional, correlational study explored the association between digital health literacy, health literacy, and patient outcomes, specifically blood pressure and hemoglobin A 1c levels in 76 patients managing comorbid type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Results indicate patients had moderate digital health literacy, which was not significantly correlated with health literacy ( r = 0.16, P = .169). Both bivariate and covariate-adjusted regression models indicated that digital health literacy was not significantly associated with patient outcomes (all P > .05, small effects). These findings suggest that although patients from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds may possess the digital health literacy to engage with digital health tools, this alone may not improve clinical outcomes. Although digital health literacy may not be directly related to improved clinical outcomes, future research should explore how digital health tools can be optimized to enhance patient engagement and address complex challenges in diverse populations managing chronic conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".