Increasing patient involvement in the diabetic foot pathway: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of interventions to enhance shared decision-making in wound care: A systematic review

AIMS

To explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance patient participation in shared decision-making in wound care and tissue viability.

BACKGROUND

Caring for people living with a wound is complex due to interaction between wound healing, symptoms, psychological wellbeing and treatment effectiveness. To respond to this complexity, there has been recent emphasis on the importance of delivering patient centred wound care and shared decision-making to personalise health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of existing interventions to support shared decision-making in wound care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of interventional studies to enhance shared decision-making in wound care or tissue viability. This was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020.

METHODS

Interventional primary research studies published in English up to January 2023 were included. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two authors.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (trials database), CINAHL, British Nursing Index (BNI), WorldCat (thesis database), Scopus and registries of ongoing studies (ISRCTN registry and clinicaltrials.gov).

RESULTS

1063 abstracts were screened, and eight full-text studies included. Findings indicate, interventions to support shared decision-making are positively received. Goal or need setting components may assist knowledge transfer between patient and clinician, and could lower short term decisional conflict. However, generally findings within this study had very low certainty due to the inconsistencies in outcomes reported, and the variation and complexity of single and multiple interventions used.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research on shared decision-making interventions in wound care should include the involvement of stakeholders and programme theory to underpin the interventions developed to consider the complexity of interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

Patients setting out their needs or goals and exploring patient questions are important and should be considered in clinical care.

REGISTRATION

The review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO database: CRD42023389820).

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Not applicable as this is a systematic review.

A Systematic Review and Classification of Factors Influencing Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment Adherence, in Accordance With the WHO Dimensions of Adherence to Long-Term Therapies

PURPOSE

Effective treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) involves a multidisciplinary treatment plan to promote wound healing and prevent complications. Given the lack of consensus data on the factors affecting patient adherence, a systematic review was performed to identify and classify factors according to the WHO Dimensions of Adherence to Long-Term Therapies.

METHODS

Six hundred and forty-three articles from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were reviewed. The inclusion criteria included qualitative and quantitative studies which discussed factors affecting patient adherence to DFU treatment, had study populations that comprised patients with either prior history of or existing DFU, and had either prior history of DFU treatment or were currently receiving treatment. Factors, and associated measures of adherence, were extracted and organized according to the WHO Dimensions of Adherence to Long-Term Therapies.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative and eight qualitative studies were included. Eleven patient-related factors, seven condition-related factors, three therapy-related factors, five socioeconomic factors, and five health system-related factors were investigated by the included studies. The largest proportion of factors studied was patient-related, such as patient insight on DFU treatment, patient motivation, and patient perception of DFU treatment. There was notable overlap in the range of discussed factors across various domains, in the socioeconomic (including social support, income, social and cultural acceptability of DFU therapy, cost) and therapy-related domains (including duration of treatment, offloading footwear, and reminder devices). Different studies found that specific factors, such as gender and patients having a low internal locus of control, had differing effects on adherence on different cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Current literature presents heterogeneous findings regarding factors affecting patient adherence. It would be useful for future studies to categorize factors as such to provide more comprehensive understanding and personalized care to patients. Further research can be done to explore how significant factors can be addressed universally across different cohort populations in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

"I am not just a place for implementation. I should be a partner": a qualitative study of patient-centered care from the perspective of diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement in care is a major component of high quality of care and is becoming recognized worldwide with many beneficial for improving patient outcomes. However, a little is known about patient involvement in the Middle East region and Saudi Arabia in particular.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patients' perceptions of their involvement during their interactions with healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory study using semi structured interview was conducted from February 2022 to March 2022. Responses were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

We conducted seven interviews with patients with diabetes ranging in age from 19 to 69 years old. We identified the following themes:1) patients' perceptions of their involvement in care, 2) barriers to patient involvement, 3) effective communication, 4) empathy, and 5) culture. We found that patients had minimal knowledge of patient involvement in care.

CONCLUSION

There is a clear need to improve education and awareness of patient involvement in Saudi Arabia. By educating patients about the possibilities of patient involvement and explaining their role it will make it easier for patients to understand appropriate levels of involvement. In addition, there is a need to understand the patient-centred care culture in Saudi Arabia through establishing frameworks with the focus on culture and patient-centred healthcare delivery.

Collaboration and Partnership in a 5-Level Engagement Framework for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Management: A Patient-oriented Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is complex, and patient engagement is essential for DFU healing, but it often comes down to the patient's consultation. Therefore, we sought to document patients' engagement in terms of collaboration and partnership for DFUs in 5 levels (direct care, organizational, policy level, research, and education), as well as strategies for patient engagement using an adapted engagement framework.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature from inception to April 2022 using the Joanna Briggs Institute method and a patient-oriented approach. We also consulted DFU stakeholders to obtain feedback on the findings. The data were extracted using PROGRESS+ factors for an equity lens. The effects of engagement were described using Bodenheimer's quadruple aims for value-based care.

RESULTS

Of 4,211 potentially eligible records, 15 studies met our eligibility criteria, including 214 patients involved in engagement initiatives. Most studies were recent (9 of 15 since 2020) and involved patient engagement at the direct medical care level (8 of 15). Self-management (7 of 15) was the principal way to clinically engage the patients. None of the studies sought to define the direct influence of patient engagement on health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few studies described patients' characteristics. Engaged patients were typically men from high-income countries, in their 50s, with poorly managed type 2 diabetes. We found little rigorous research of patient engagement at all levels for DFUs. There is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in this area and to engage a diversity of patients.

Improving Adherence to Treatment Plans in Diabetes Patients With Neuropathic Foot Wounds

Background: In southeast states, diabetes continues to rise. Medical expenses are higher for -individuals diagnosed with diabetes-related complications, and poor outcomes are associated with missed appointments for wound treatment. Objective: The aim of this clinical practice contribution was to implement interventions to increase adherence to appointments and treatment plans in an outpatient wound clinic. Methods: Project participants over 18 years of age who were at risk for or have neuropathic foot wounds and are on weekly treatment regimens were recruited. Clinic staff were surveyed on the perceived success of and willingness to continue the interventions. Results: All staff surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that an automated reminder system and incentive program would make a significant impact on the patient's quality of life and worth the time and effort for staff to continue implementation. No patients in the control group required admission to acute care for treatment. Conclusions: Going forward with implications for future practice, these interventions demonstrated both the importance of adherence to outpatient appointments and opportunities to promote patient engagement. Implications for Nursing: Improving attendance at outpatient clinic appointments is significant for the delivery of quality patient care. By managing chronic conditions in the outpatient setting, complications can be reduced.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review

Background

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

Methods

We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

Results

We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches’, patients’, and clinicians’ commitments to patients’ involvement in decision making and decision coaches’ knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient’s values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient’s progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach’s advocacy for the patient, and the patient’s deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs).

Discussion

In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients’ participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients’ progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0.

Attitudes and experiences towards the application of motivational interviewing by podiatrists working with people with diabetes at high-risk of developing foot ulcers: a mixed-methods study

Background

Podiatrists are key professionals in promoting adequate foot self-care for people with diabetes at high-risk of developing foot ulcers. However, merely informing patients about the advantages of foot self-care is insufficient to realise behavioural change. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a promising person-centred communication style that could help to create a working alliance between healthcare providers and patient to improve foot self-care. This study aims to observe and analyse the application of MI in consultations carried out by MI-trained and non-MI-trained podiatrists with their patients, and explore podiatrists’ attitudes and experiences towards MI.

Methods

Eighteen podiatrists (median age: 28.5 years, 10 female and 8 male) followed a three-day basic training in MI and 4 podiatrists (median age: 38.5 years, 4 female) were not trained in MI. To observe and rate the MI-fidelity in daily clinical practice, audio recordings from the MI-trained and non-MI-trained podiatrists were scored with the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity code. Individual, semi-structed, in-depth interviews were conducted with the MI-trained podiatrists to explore their attitudes towards and experiences with MI. These data sources were triangulated to describe the effect of training podiatrists in MI for their clinical practice.

Results

The MI-trained podiatrists scored significantly higher than the non-MI-trained podiatrists on two of four global MI-related communication skills (empathy, p = 0.008 and change talk, p = 0.008), on one of five core MI-adherent behaviours (affirmation, p = 0.041) and on one of the other behaviour counts (simple reflections, p = 0.008). The podiatrists mainly reported their attitudes and experiences regarding partnership and cultivating change talk, during the interviews. In addition, they also mentioned facilitators and barriers to using MI and indicated whether they experienced MI as having added value.

Conclusions

The MI-trained podiatrists used the principles of MI at a solid beginner proficiency level in their clinical practice in comparison to the non-MI-trained podiatrists, who did not reach this level. This achievement is in accordance with the basic MI-training they received. This multi-method study reveals that podiatrists can be effectively trained in applying MI in daily clinical practice.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NL7710. Registered: 6 May 2019.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Evidence for person-centred care in chronic wound care: A systematic review and recommendations for practice

BACKGROUND

Chronic wounds affect an estimated 2.21 per 1000 population. They are a significant source of morbidity and affect individuals physically, psychologically, socially and financially. Person-centered care is one approach to improve patient outcomes in wound care as it values patients' perspectives, beliefs and autonomy and considers the person as a whole within the cultural context in which care is provided.

AIM

We aimed to review the evidence on the use of person-centered care (PCC) in chronic wound care management and provide recommendations for practice and future research.

METHOD

Using a systematic review methodology, we searched six databases for full-text papers from 2009-2019 published in peer-reviewed journals with no limits on language.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles on studies involving 3149 patients from nine countries were identified. Studies were conducted under three broad intervention categories: healthcare professional education (n=1); patient education (n=14) and telemedicine (n=3). Studies were equally focused on prevention and treatment of chronic wounds. Significant improvements were reported in patient knowledge, pain and self-care behaviours. Only two studies evaluated the impact on wound healing and one study estimated the cost of implementing person-centered care.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base to support PCC in wound management is developing and based on our review has shown improved outcomes in areas of pressure ulcer prevention, patient satisfaction, patient knowledge and quality of life, but clinical outcomes such as wound healing were less well explored. Further research with more objective outcome measures are required.

Guidance and/or Decision Coaching with Patient Decision Aids: Scoping Reviews to Inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

INTRODUCTION

In 2005, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration identified guidance and decision coaching as important dimensions of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and developed a set of quality criteria. We sought to update definitions, theoretical rationale, and evidence for guidance and/or decision coaching used within or alongside PtDAs for the IPDAS update 2.0.

METHODS

We conducted 2 scoping reviews on guidance and decision coaching, including systematic searches and a hand search of the Cochrane Review on PtDAs. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on guidance or decision coaching used with/alongside PtDAs. Data, including conceptual models, were summarized narratively and with meta-analyses when appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 1022 citations, we found no RCTs that evaluated guidance in PtDAs. The 2013 definition for guidance was endorsed, and we made minimal changes to the description of guidance. Of 3039 citations, we identified 21 RCTs on decision coaching informed by 5 conceptual models stating that people exposed to decision coaching are more likely to progress in making informed decisions consistent with their values. Compared to usual care, decision coaching with PtDAs led to improved knowledge mean difference [MD], 19.5/100; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-29.0; 5 RCTs). Compared to decision coaching alone, PtDAs led to a small improvement in knowledge (MD, 3.6/100; 95% CI, 1.0-6.3; 3 RCTs). There were variable effects on other outcomes. We simplified the decision coaching definition slightly and defined minimal decision coaching elements.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence on which to propose changes in guidance in IPDAS. Decision coaching is continuing to be used alongside PtDAs, but there is inadequate evidence on the added effectiveness compared to PtDAs alone. The decision coaching definition was updated with minimal elements.

Psychological interventions for treating foot ulcers, and preventing their recurrence, in people with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) can be defined as a full-thickness wound below the ankle and is a major complication of diabetes mellitus. Despite best practice, many wounds fail to heal, and when they do, the risk of recurrence of DFU remains high. Beliefs about personal control, or influence, on ulceration are associated with better engagement with self-care in DFU. Psychological interventions aim to reduce levels of psychological distress and empower people to engage in self-care, and there is some evidence to suggest that they can impact positively on the rate of wound healing.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of psychological interventions on healing and recurrence of DFU.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and reviewed reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated psychological interventions compared with standard care, education or another psychological intervention. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of wounds completely healed; time to complete wound healing; time to recurrence and number of recurrences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. Three authors independently screened all potentially relevant studies using the inclusion criteria and carried out data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 290 participants: six RCTs and one quasi-RCT. The studies were conducted in Australia, the USA, the UK, Indonesia, Norway and South Africa. Three trials used a counselling-style intervention and one assessed an intervention designed to enhance an understanding of well-being. One RCT used a biofeedback relaxation training intervention and one used a psychosocial intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy. A quasi-RCT assessed motivation and tailored the intervention accordingly. Due to the heterogeneity of the trials identified, pooling of data was judged inappropriate, and we therefore present a narrative synthesis. Comparisons were (1) psychological intervention compared with standard care and (2) psychological intervention compared with another psychological intervention. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between psychological intervention and standard care for people with diabetic foot ulceration in the proportion of wounds completely healed (two trials, data not pooled, first trial RR 6.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 112.5; 16 participants, second trial RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.39; 60 participants), in foot ulcer recurrence after one year (two trials, data not pooled, first trial RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.41; 41 participants, second trial RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.05 to 7.90; 13 participants) or in health-related quality of life (one trial, MD 5.52, 95% CI -5.80 to 16.84; 56 participants). This is based on very low-certainty evidence which we downgraded for very serious study limitations, risk of bias and imprecision. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of wounds completely healed in people with diabetic foot ulceration depending on whether they receive a psychological intervention compared with another psychological intervention (one trial, RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.92 to 5.93; 16 participants). This is based on very low-certainty evidence from one study which we downgraded for very serious study limitations, risk of bias and imprecision. Time to complete wound healing was reported in two studies but not in a way that was suitable for inclusion in this review. One trial reported self-efficacy and two trials reported quality of life, but only one reported quality of life in a manner that enabled us to extract data for this review. No studies explored the other primary outcome (time to recurrence) or secondary outcomes (amputations (major or distal) or cost).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unable to determine whether psychological interventions are of any benefit to people with an active diabetic foot ulcer or a history of diabetic foot ulcers to achieve complete wound healing or prevent recurrence. This is because there are few trials of psychological interventions in this area. Of the trials we included, few measured all of our outcomes of interest and, where they did so, we judged the evidence, using GRADE criteria, to be of very low certainty.

A collaborative approach in patient education for diabetes foot and wound care: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Foot care education is an important strategy in reducing lower limb complications. There is evidence that contemporary communication approaches can improve patient education outcomes. To inform the potential of such methods in diabetic foot education, we trialled a collaborative approach in patient education counselling in a podiatry clinic. We conducted a single-blind pragmatic randomised controlled trial on 52 diabetes patients who had an active foot ulcer. Participants were randomised to either collaborative education or traditional didactic education. Outcomes on knowledge and self-care behaviours were collected via a pre and post study questionnaire (max score: 75). The study ended at 12 weeks or when the wound healed prior. 42 (80.7%) participants completed the study. The collaborative patient education group had a significant increase in score post-study (38.8 ± 8.5) compared to pre-study (32.8 ± 6.9; P < .001). The control group had no significant increase in score post study. The difference in scores between groups had a moderate effect size (d = 0.54). The use of a collaborative approach in patient education was able to produce significantly greater increase in knowledge retention and self-care behaviours, without the need for additional consultation time in a podiatry clinic.

Motivational interviewing to improve adherence behaviours for the prevention of diabetic foot ulceration

Diabetic foot ulceration is a major complication associated with high morbidity. Little evidence exists on which interventions are effective at preventing ulceration. Participants who are adherent to self-care behaviours have significantly better outcomes. Motivational interviewing is an intervention that has been used successfully for conditions where adherence is important, such as reduction of obesity and HbA1c levels. A systematic review was conducted to determine whether motivational interviewing is effective at improving adherence for the prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulceration. Electronic searches were run without date or language restrictions in MEDLINE (viaEBSCOhost), CINAHL (viaEBSCOhost), ProQuest (Health and Medical Collection, Nursing and Allied Health Database, PsycINFO, Psychology, PsychArticles), AMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science Core Collections. Papers were included if participants had or were at risk of diabetic foot ulceration. Studies required motivational interviewing or a motivational approach as the sole intervention or as a component. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included if ulceration and/or at least one behavioural outcome was measured before and after the intervention. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity prevented the pooling of data. One study used motivational interviewing as the sole intervention. This study found a short-term positive effect on footwear adherence. The remaining four studies had a motivational component within their interventions. Two of these studies showed the intervention to be effective but both were at a high risk of bias. This review demonstrates an evidence gap. More research is needed.

Advancements in improving health-related quality of life in patients living with diabetic foot ulcers

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) constitutes a burden to patients with diabetes deteriorating their quality of life. Health related quality of life (HRQoL) can now be quantified with the use of specific tools; some of them provide a holistic approach to patients' well-being, while others are disease specific or even region specific. Many of these tools are applicable to patients with DFU. This review will present current data about the impact different interventions in the management of DFU on quality of life related parameters.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a search of literature using keywords 'diabetes mellitus', 'diabetic foot ulcer', 'diabetic foot', 'health related quality of life', 'quality of life' and 'SF-36' to identify studies that contained data about the relationship between different interventions and quality of life of patients with diabetic foot ulcers.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Available data are not sufficient to conclude on the impact of interventions aimed to heal DFU on HRQoL. There is need for more, better designed studies and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of treatments on HRQoL in patients with DFUs. The development of new, diabetic foot specific tools will help to improve our knowledge in this field.