Figures
There were errors in the extraction of numbers used to calculate the prevalence of limited health literacy, resulting in the incorrect extracted values for Souza, J. G., et al (2014), Kim, S. H. (2009), Chen, G. D., et al (2014), van der Heide, I., et al (2014), Aikens JE, Piette JD. (2009), Mancuso, J. M. (2010) and Wallace, A. S., et al (2010) in Table 1. Please see the corrected Table 1 here.
The Results section has also been affected by the errors in the extracted values. In the Included Studies subsection of the Results, there are errors in the second paragraph. The corrected paragraph should read: The study with the highest reported prevalence of limited health literacy (76.3%) was conducted to determine the mechanism through with health literacy exerted its influence on health outcomes related to diabetes care. It was a cross-sectional study involving 232 patients with T2DM attending regional hospital in Northern Taiwan. Health literacy was assessed using NVS. The mean age of the participants was 58.02 years (SD 9.49), 44.8% of participants were female, and 38.4% had received primary education or below. [55]
The Pooled prevalence of limited HL: A meta-analysis subsection of the Results has also been affected and have been updated as a result. The corrected section should read: The pooled global prevalence of limited health literacy was 32.5% (95% CI: 24.9–40.1). Meta-analysis of all included studies yielded high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.3%, p < 0.001); which could primarily be explained by the country in which the study was conducted (p<0.001), the health literacy tool used (p = 0.002), participants’ education levels (p<0.001), and the setting where the study was conducted (p<0.001). Most of the included studies (n = 18) were conducted in the USA. Thirteen of these studies measured functional HL specifically, these studies were included in a separate meta-analysis and presented in a forest plot in Fig 4. The pooled prevalence of functional, limited health literacy in the USA was 34.5% (95% CI: 24.1–45), with a heterogeneity score of 99.1%. Meta-regression analysis identified two factors that predicted this heterogeneity, the study setting (p = 0.005) and the proportion of participants with more the high school education (p = 0.009).
Figs 2 and 4 were also affected and have been updated as a result, please see the corrected figures here.
(Refer Fig 2_Worldwide prevalence of limited HL.TIFF).
(Refer Fig 4 Meta-analysis of functional HL studies in the USA.TIFF).
Reference
Citation: Abdullah A, Liew SM, Salim H, Ng CJ, Chinna K (2022) Correction: Prevalence of limited health literacy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 17(1): e0261430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261430
Published: January 4, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Abdullah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.