Please find below the access to the article. – health literacy and diabetes sel

Please find below the access to the article.
– health literacy and diabetes self-management
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.11.015
– second article is: (the link is attached)
Marciano, L., Camerini, AL. & Schulz, P.J. The Role of Health Literacy in Diabetes Knowledge, Self-Care, and Glycemic Control: a Meta-analysis. J GEN INTERN MED 34, 1007–1017 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04832-y
https://rdcu.be/c6wap
For each article that is being critized we need the following:
Inclusion and exclusion criteria,
Subjects used and if informed conset was obtained.
Weakness and strength of the article.
Purpose, findings and Conclusion of article.
I’m adding one of the articles that I am still working on just to have a brief reference:
If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me.
Thank you.
Search Strategies and Yield
The data searched for evidence for this project was emphasized on terms related to health literacy, education and diabetes management. The search conducted online utilized the search engines: Elsevier Inc, Cochrane Library, National Library of Medicine and FDU school library. Keywords used for the search were “diabetes management and health literacy” which yielded a total of 107,000 results; and “diabetes health literacy” which yielded 323 articles.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria of the five articles included those that were published in English, 2016-2023, full text, scholarly and peer reviewed. The articles returned from the search were further reviewed for information contained in the titles and abstracts relating to diabetes education, health literacy, and low socioeconomic status. The articles excluded were anything before 2016; non-peer reviewed; studies lacking references.
Literature Review
Level of evidence was reviewed for determining appropriateness of selection of articles.
The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) 2018 was employed to evaluate the study. Validity, methodology, research design, strategy appropriateness of research, data collection in aimed to address the research issue,
relationships between researchers and participants, ethical considerations, rigor of data analysis,
clarity of the statement findings and value of the research.
The purpose of the study in Dang, Patel-Shori, Barros and Yu, (2020) is to determine the effectiveness of individualized education strategies to improve glycemic control in patients with low health literacy over a three month period
The method used in this study was prospective, open-labeled, that included 23 patients with diabetes mellitus in a pharmacist-led ambulatory care clinic. An institutional review board at site approved the protocol and patients were provided with a written informed consent (Dan YH, et al., 2020).
The inclusion criteria for participation was to be at least 18 years of age with a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes, possessed low health literacy, which is defined by REALM-R (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Revised) score of 6 or less. Patients also needed to have an A1c greater than 7%.
Exclusion criteria were any patient with a diagnosis of stroke in the past 3 months, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, receiving pharmacotherapy for Alzheimer’s or dementia, such as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. In addition any non-English speaker, or patients with visual impairment or without access to a telephone were not eligible for the study.
The study had 23 patients that participated in total; out of that number (N=12) received a personalized and teach-back method, and had a follow up phone call to assess comprehension. The second group (N = 11) had usual care (Dan YH, et al., 2020).
The limitation or weakness of this study is that criteria selection excluded participants of non-English speaking, physical limitations or access to a phone. The study was also limited to people that had some level of primary education as they needed to read and do some medication titration.
A strength found was that they followed up every two weeks with their patients, they assessed their level of understanding, they reinforced and requested a return demonstration.
The results of this pilot study proved the importance in close loop communication by using simple literacy-appropriate intervention strategies such as teach back method and action plans. It was proven that most participants that completed the study had a 0.9% decrease in A1c over a period of 3 months (Dan YH, et al., 2020).