AIM: The object of this study was to find out which self-care activities patients with diabetes perform to prevent diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) and to look for differences between patient groups (diabetes education and foot at risk). BACKGROUND: Besides the importance of screening patients at risk to develop a DFS and the clinical interventions, it is also necessary to involve the patient with diabetes in the self-care of their feet. There is no information in Germany concerning self-care activities carried out by patients for the prevention of DFS. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHOD: A secondary analysis of the data used in the study for the development of the 'Frankfurter Catalogue of Foot Self-Care - Prevention of Diabetic Foot Syndrome'. Two hundred and sixty-nine patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were included. The study population was divided into different training experience groups and foot at risk groups based on self-reported data. RESULTS: Patients who had participated in more than three education programmes performed significantly better self-care than patients who had no or only one training programme. Patients with a foot at risk for the development of diabetic foot ulcer perform more adequate self-care regarding professional assistance in foot care, but are not more active in the self-control of the feet, shoes and socks. CONCLUSIONS: There are self-care deficits regarding self-control of feet, shoes and socks. Based on the data it seems to be that more than three education programmes are needed to lead to performance of adequate self-care. Especially patients with a foot at risk need more professional support for their daily self-care activities to prevent DFS or further foot complications. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The first findings support that it might be helpful to identify patients with self-care deficits and therefore to improve patients daily foot self-care.
AIM: The object of this study was to find out which self-care activities patients with diabetes perform to prevent diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) and to look for differences between patient groups (diabetes education and foot at risk). BACKGROUND: Besides the importance of screening patients at risk to develop a DFS and the clinical interventions, it is also necessary to involve the patient with diabetes in the self-care of their feet. There is no information in Germany concerning self-care activities carried out by patients for the prevention of DFS. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHOD: A secondary analysis of the data used in the study for the development of the 'Frankfurter Catalogue of Foot Self-Care - Prevention of Diabetic Foot Syndrome'. Two hundred and sixty-nine patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were included. The study population was divided into different training experience groups and foot at risk groups based on self-reported data. RESULTS:Patients who had participated in more than three education programmes performed significantly better self-care than patients who had no or only one training programme. Patients with a foot at risk for the development of diabetic foot ulcer perform more adequate self-care regarding professional assistance in foot care, but are not more active in the self-control of the feet, shoes and socks. CONCLUSIONS: There are self-care deficits regarding self-control of feet, shoes and socks. Based on the data it seems to be that more than three education programmes are needed to lead to performance of adequate self-care. Especially patients with a foot at risk need more professional support for their daily self-care activities to prevent DFS or further foot complications. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The first findings support that it might be helpful to identify patients with self-care deficits and therefore to improve patients daily foot self-care.
Authors: Linda Lecker; Martin Stevens; Florian Thienel; Djordje Lazovic; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Gesine H Seeber Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: A McInnes; W Jeffcoate; L Vileikyte; F Game; K Lucas; N Higson; L Stuart; A Church; J Scanlan; J Anders Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.359