OBJECTIVE: To assess the knowledge and practices among the diabetic patients regarding foot care. METHODS: In this cross sectional study, by using non-probability convenience sampling, 150 diabetic respondents fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Their knowledge and practices regarding foot care were assessed by a pre-tested questionnaire and classified as good, satisfactory and poor depending upon the score. Fifteen questions each were asked regarding knowledge and practices of foot care. Each question was assigned one mark. If score was more than 70% (11-15), it was regarded as good, if score was 50-70% (8-10) it was regarded as satisfactory and if score less than 50% (<8) it was regarded as poor both for knowledge and practice for foot care. RESULTS: The mean age of the respondents was 48 +/- 10.8 years. About 29.3% respondents had good knowledge, 40% had satisfactory knowledge and 30.7% had poor knowledge about foot care. Whereas only 14% respondents had good practices for foot care, 54% had satisfactory practices and 32% had poor practices. Education of the respondents had significant statistical association with knowledge (p-value<0.001) and practices (p-value <0.001) regarding foot care. Sex and income per capita had shown no significant statistical association with knowledge and practices regarding foot care. CONCLUSION: About one third of diabetic patients had poor knowledge about foot care and only very few patients had good practices for foot care. Literacy has significant association with the knowledge and practices related to foot care in diabetic patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the knowledge and practices among the diabeticpatients regarding foot care. METHODS: In this cross sectional study, by using non-probability convenience sampling, 150 diabetic respondents fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Their knowledge and practices regarding foot care were assessed by a pre-tested questionnaire and classified as good, satisfactory and poor depending upon the score. Fifteen questions each were asked regarding knowledge and practices of foot care. Each question was assigned one mark. If score was more than 70% (11-15), it was regarded as good, if score was 50-70% (8-10) it was regarded as satisfactory and if score less than 50% (<8) it was regarded as poor both for knowledge and practice for foot care. RESULTS: The mean age of the respondents was 48 +/- 10.8 years. About 29.3% respondents had good knowledge, 40% had satisfactory knowledge and 30.7% had poor knowledge about foot care. Whereas only 14% respondents had good practices for foot care, 54% had satisfactory practices and 32% had poor practices. Education of the respondents had significant statistical association with knowledge (p-value<0.001) and practices (p-value <0.001) regarding foot care. Sex and income per capita had shown no significant statistical association with knowledge and practices regarding foot care. CONCLUSION: About one third of diabeticpatients had poor knowledge about foot care and only very few patients had good practices for foot care. Literacy has significant association with the knowledge and practices related to foot care in diabeticpatients.