Health literacy-sensitive communication in diabetes care: A qualitative exploration of interpersonal and policy-level factors


Dönmez A. H., ÇATAR R. Ö.

Patient Education and Counseling, cilt.146, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, SSCI, Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 146
  • Basım Tarihi: 2026
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.pec.2026.109503
  • Dergi Adı: Patient Education and Counseling
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, CINAHL, Educational research abstracts (ERA), EMBASE, Gender Studies Database, MEDLINE, Psycinfo, Public Affairs Index
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Diabetes education, Health literacy sensitive communication, Organisational healthcare, Qualitative research, Teach-back method
  • Marmara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objectives: This study explores the factors influencing health literacy-sensitive communication in diabetes education by conducting in-depth interviews with patients who previously completed a validated health literacy-sensitive communication scale. The aim is to understand patient experiences and identify elements that support or hinder such communication in private hospital settings in Türkiye. Methods: This qualitative study is the second phase of an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design. Thirty-six patients diagnosed with diabetes were recruited from four private hospitals using purposive sampling. Participants had previously completed the HL-COM scale, adapted into Turkish. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted and analyzed using content analysis via MAXQDA software. Thematic coding focused on health literacy-sensitive communication experiences. Results: Two main themes and thirteen sub-themes were identified. The first theme, Interpersonal Communication Strategies, includes: recognizing individual needs, providing detailed information, using plain language, supporting acceptance and adherence, avoiding assumptions, offering material support, and encouraging patient participation. The second theme, Policies and Practices, includes: provider expertise, access to services and information, coordination and collaboration, periodic follow-up, and strategies to raise awareness. Participants emphasized that communication adapted to their literacy levels and emotional needs improved understanding, trust, and engagement in self-management. However, challenges such as interrupted follow-up, limited access to specialists, and lack of coordinated communication were also frequently reported. Conclusions: Health literacy-sensitive communication in diabetes care requires not only skilled interpersonal approaches but also institutional structures that support continuity, clarity, and accessibility. When these components align, they empower patients and promote better health outcomes. Practice Implications: Healthcare professionals should adopt plain, personalized, and interactive communication strategies. Institutions and policymakers must address structural gaps, particularly in continuity and access to specialized care, to ensure sustainable patient education and support long-term disease management.