Effectiveness of educational interventions for diabetes-related foot disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of educational programs for people with or at risk of diabetes-related foot disease (DFD). A systematic search identified RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs in preventing or managing DFD. The primary outcome was risk of developing a foot ulcer. Secondary outcomes included any amputation, mortality, changes in cardiovascular risk factors, foot-care knowledge and self-care behaviours. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's ROB-2 tool. Education programs were tested in 29 RCTs (n = 3891) and reduced risk of a foot ulcer by approximately half although the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) reached 1.00 (odds ratio [OR], OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 1.00, I2  = 65%). Education programs reduced risk of any amputation (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.13, 0.88, I2  = 38%) and HbA1c levels (standardized mean difference -0.73; 95% CI -1.26, -0.20, I2  = 93%) without affecting all-cause mortality (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.57, 2.07, I2  = 0%). Education programs mostly significantly improved DFD knowledge (13 of 16 trials) and self-care behaviour scores (19 of 20 trials). Only one trial was deemed at low risk of bias. Previously tested education programs have mostly effectively improved participants' knowledge and self-care behaviours and reduced risk of foot ulceration and amputation. Larger high quality trials with longer follow-up are needed.

Screening behaviors for diabetic foot risk and their influencing factors among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Changsha, China

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot is a serious complication of diabetes with a high disability and mortality rate, which can be prevented by early screening. General practitioners play an essential role in diabetic foot risk screening, yet the screening behaviors of general practitioners have rarely been studied in primary care settings. This study aimed to investigate foot risk screening behaviors and analyze their influencing factors among general practitioners.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 844 general practitioners from 78 community health centers in Changsha, China. A self-designed and validated questionnaire was used to assess the general practitioner's cognition, attitude, and behaviors on performing diabetic foot risk screening. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to investigate the influencing factors of risk screening behaviors.

RESULTS

The average score of diabetic foot risk screening behaviors among the general practitioners was 61.53 ± 14.69, and 271 (32.1%) always or frequently performed foot risk screening for diabetic patients. Higher training frequency (β = 3.197, p < 0.001), higher screening cognition (β = 2.947, p < 0.001), and more positive screening attitude (β = 4.564, p < 0.001) were associated with more diabetic foot risk screening behaviors, while limited time and energy (β=-5.184, p < 0.001) and lack of screening tools (β=-6.226, p < 0.001) were associated with fewer diabetic foot screening behaviors.

CONCLUSION

The score of risk screening behaviors for the diabetic foot of general practitioners in Changsha was at a medium level. General practitioners' diabetic foot risk screening behaviors may be improved through strengthening training on relevant guidelines and evidence-based screening techniques, improving cognition and attitude towards foot risk screening among general practitioners, provision of more general practitioners or nurse practitioners, and user-friendly screening tools.

The High Re-Ulceration Rate in Lower Extremity Amputation Intervention in Type 2 Diabetic Vietnamese Patients After 24-Month Follow-Up at Cho Ray Hospital, Vietnam

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a prevalent and severe disease with vascular and/or neurological complications, and if not diagnosed and treated promptly, it may rapidly deteriorate. Despite amputation or nonamputation treatment, there is still a high rate of re-ulceration. Previous studies have shown that the recurrence rate varies from 43% to 59% after 2 years. Currently, there is still a high rate of lower extremity amputation intervention, particularly above-the-ankle amputation, at Cho Ray Hospital in Vietnam, reaching 50%. The effectiveness of this intervention in the long term based on re-ulceration has not been evaluated in Vietnamese diabetic patients (DPs). This study aims to describe the long-term outcomes of amputation intervention in Type 2 DPs after 24 months and identify factors related to DFU recurrence in order to improve DFU management in low-middle-income countries like Vietnam. From January to June 2022, archived clinical and direct visit or phone follow-up data were collected and analyzed from diabetic foot ulcer patients with low extremity amputation who were treated at Cho Ray hospital from 2018 to 2020. The high re-ulceration rate in the 24th month was 29.8% (17/57), and the factor related to this outcome was "late diagnosis and care" (32.4 days vs 26.9 days with P = .03). Other potential factors (higher rates but no significant statistical difference with P > .05) included failure of HbA1c control greater than 9% (82.5% vs 67.5%), the severity of foot ulcers with TEXAS 3B (82% vs 60%), the number of years having diabetes (8.7 years vs 6.7 years), loss of monofilament sensation (82.5% vs 70.6%), and a history of diabetic foot ulcer (17.6% vs 10%). The re-ulceration after 24 months might depend on various clinical factors. Therefore, early diagnosis and care for diabetic foot ulcers could help reduce amputation rates and the risk of re-ulceration.

Implementation strategies to overcome barriers to diabetes-related footcare delivery in primary care: a qualitative study

The aim of this study is to identify, from the perspectives of key health policy decision-makers, strategies that address barriers to diabetes-related footcare delivery in primary care, and outline key elements required to support implementation into clinical practice. The study utilised a qualitative design with inductive analysis approach. Seven key health policy decisions-makers within Australia were interviewed. Practical strategies identified to support provision and delivery of foot care in primary care were: (a) building on current incentivisation structures through quality improvement projects; (b) enhancing education and community awareness; (c) greater utilisation and provision of resources and support systems; and (d) development of collaborative models of care and referral pathways. Key elements reported to support effective implementation of footcare strategies included developing and implementing strategies based on co-design, consultation, collaboration, consolidation and co-commissioning. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first Australian study to obtain information from key health policy decision-makers, identifying strategies to support footcare delivery in primary care. Implementation of preventative diabetes-related footcare strategies into 'routine' primary care clinical practice requires multiparty co-design, consultation, consolidation, collaboration and co-commissioning. The basis of strategy development will influence implementation success and thus improve outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Barriers and enablers to providing preventative and early intervention diabetes-related foot care: a qualitative study of primary care healthcare professionals' perceptions

This study explored the perceived healthcare system and process barriers and enablers experienced by GPs and Credentialled Diabetes Educators (CDEs) in Australian primary care, in the delivery of preventative and early intervention foot care to people with diabetes. A qualitative design with inductive analysis approach was utilised and reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two GPs and 14 CDEs from rural, urban and metropolitan areas of Australia. Participants were from New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. Barriers to providing foot care constituted five broad themes: (1) lack of access to footcare specialists and services; (2) education and training insufficiencies; (3) human and physical resource limitations related to funding inadequacies; (4) poor care integration such as inadequate communication and feedback across services and disciplines, and ineffectual multidisciplinary care; and (5) deficient footcare processes and guidelines including ambiguous referral pathways. Enablers to foot care were found at opposing ends of the same spectra as the identified barriers or were related to engaging in mentorship programs and utilising standardised assessment tools. This is the first Australian study to obtain information from GPs and CDEs about the perceived barriers and enablers influencing preventative and early intervention diabetes-related foot care. Findings offer an opportunity for the development and translation of effective intervention strategies across health systems, policy, funding, curriculum and clinical practice, in order to improve outcomes for people with diabetes.

Prioritisation of diabetes-related footcare amongst primary care healthcare professionals

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess primary healthcare professionals' priority for managing diabetic foot disease (DFD) over the progressive course of the condition compared to other aspects of diabetes care.

BACKGROUND

DFD affects up to 60 million people globally. Evidence suggests that comprehensive preventative footcare may reduce serious complications of DFD, such as amputation.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional quantitative study reported according to STROBE statement.

METHODS

General Practitioners (GPs) and Credentialled Diabetes Educators (CDEs) working within Australian primary care were invited to complete an online survey, to obtain information about preventative and early intervention footcare priorities and practices. Ten GPs and 84 CDEs completed the survey.

RESULTS

On diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) review was identified to be one of the top three priorities of care by 57 (61%) of participants whilst at 20-year history of diabetes 73 (78%) participants indicated its priority. Foot assessments became a priority for 78% (n = 73) of participants and podiatry referrals a priority for 53% (n = 50) of participants only when a "foot concern" was raised. Referrals to specialist high-risk foot podiatrists or services were a first priority for 56% (n = 53), when the person had significant amputation risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Diabetes-related preventative footcare assessments and management remain a low priority amongst primary healthcare professionals. Preventative care for asymptomatic complications, such as DFD, may be overlooked in favour of monitoring HbA1c or medication management. Limited prioritisation of footcare in primary care is concerning given the risks for amputation associated with DFD.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study reveals the need for primary healthcare decision makers and clinicians to ensure preventative footcare is a focused priority earlier in the diabetes care continuum. Collaborative and widespread promotion of the importance of proactive rather than reactive footcare practices is required to support prevention of foot ulcers and amputation.