2006
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-926985
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wie viel wissen stationär behandelte Diabetiker über ihre Erkrankung?

Abstract: There is a group of diabetic inward-patients that is less informed about diabetes and shows knowledge deficits in testing. These patients often lack diabetes education and show an unfavourable course of the disease, already having diabetes related complications. Type-2-diabetes patients who feel that they have poor information about their disease actually achieve lower results in knowledge testing. Efforts to assure diabetes education for these patients are essentially necessary.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Because there is no German version of a validated instrument on this topic available, we developed an own questionnaire based on Anglo-American and German instruments [18-23]. The questionnaire is adapted to the EBPI and displays the knowledge needed to make an informed choice about blood glucose testing.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because there is no German version of a validated instrument on this topic available, we developed an own questionnaire based on Anglo-American and German instruments [18-23]. The questionnaire is adapted to the EBPI and displays the knowledge needed to make an informed choice about blood glucose testing.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concluiu-se que esforços para assegurar educação sobre diabetes aos pacientes acometidos por esta enfermidade é essencial para reduzir os riscos de complicações (15) . Os pacientes da nossa amostra eram acompanhados em média por três médicos, o que, teoricamente, aumentaria a transmissão de informações sobre a doença.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified