BMC Public Health (Mar 2021)

Low health literacy is associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany

  • Daniel Tajdar,
  • Dagmar Lühmann,
  • Regina Fertmann,
  • Tim Steinberg,
  • Hendrik van den Bussche,
  • Martin Scherer,
  • Ingmar Schäfer

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10508-2
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Low health literacy is believed to be associated with behaviours that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. But there is limited knowledge on the relation between health literacy (HL) and diabetes risk, and whether improving HL could be a potential prevention strategy. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine the link between HL and diabetes risk among non-diabetic adults. Methods We used data from the Hamburg Diabetes Prevention Survey, a population-based cross-sectional study in Germany. One thousand, two hundred and fifty-five non-diabetic subjects aged 18–60 years were eligible. The German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS, ranging 0 to 123 points) was used to determine the individual risk of type 2 diabetes. The short version of the European Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16, ranging 0 to 16 points) was applied to assess the individual self-reported HL. Subjects were asked to self-estimate their diabetes risk, which was then compared with the calculated GDRS. Descriptive statistics were calculated to investigate group differences in the GDRS and self-estimated diabetes risk. Linear as well as logistic regression models were performed to analyse potential influencing variables of the GDRS as well as incorrect self-estimated diabetes risk. In three nested statistical models for each outcome, these analyses were adjusted for age, gender, educational level and the presence of chronic conditions. Results According to the criteria of the GDRS, 996 (79.4%) subjects showed “low risk”, 176 (14.0%) “still low risk”, 53 (4.2%) “elevated risk”, and 30 (2.4%) “high to very high risk” to develop type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years. In the statistical models including all control variables, subjects with “inadequate HL” scored 2.38 points higher on the GDRS (95% CI 0.378 to 4.336; P = 0.020) and had a 2.04 greater chance to estimate their diabetes risk incorrectly (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.14; P = 0.001) compared to those with “sufficient HL”. Conclusion The risk of type 2 diabetes is increased in people with inadequate self-reported HL. People with high diabetes risk and inadequate HL might be provided with educational programs to improve diabetes knowledge and reduce behavioural risk factors.

Keywords