792-P: Understanding Barriers to Diabetic Foot Care in an Urban Low-Income Hospital: A Focus Group Qualitative Assessment

Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 792-P
Author(s):  
MAYA FAYFMAN ◽  
MARCOS SCHECHTER ◽  
CHIMORA N. AMOBI ◽  
REBEKAH N. WILLIAMS ◽  
JOANNA L. HILLMAN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Foot Care

scholarly journals Foot thermometry with mHeath-based supplementation to prevent diabetic foot ulcers: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lazo-Porras ◽  
Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz ◽  
Alvaro Taype-Rondan ◽  
Robert H. Gilman ◽  
German Malaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Foot Ulceration ◽  
History Of

Background: Novel approaches to reduce diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) in low- and middle-income countries are needed. Our objective was to compare incidence of DFUs in the thermometry plus mobile health (mHealth) reminders (intervention) vs. thermometry-only (control). Methods: We conducted a randomized trial enrolling adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus at risk of foot ulcers (risk groups 2 or 3) but without foot ulcers at the time of recruitment, and allocating them to control (instruction to use a liquid crystal-based foot thermometer daily) or intervention (same instruction supplemented with text and voice messages with reminders to use the device and messages to promote foot care) groups, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome was time to occurrence of DFU. A process evaluation was also conducted. Results: A total of 172 patients (63% women, mean age 61 years) were enrolled; 86 to each study group. More patients enrolled in the intervention arm had a history of previous DFU (66% vs. 48%). Follow-up for the primary endpoint was complete for 158 of 172 participants (92%). Adherence to ≥80% of daily temperature measurements was 87% (103 of 118) among the study participants who returned the logbook. DFU cumulative incidence was 24% (19 of 79) in the intervention arm and 11% (9 of 79) in the control arm. After adjusting for history of foot ulceration and study site, the hazard ratio (HR) for DFU was 1.44 (95% CI 0.65, 3.22). Conclusions: In our study, conducted in a low-income setting, the addition of mHealth to foot thermometry was not effective in reducing foot ulceration. Importantly, there was a higher rate of previous DFU in the intervention group, the adherence to thermometry was high, and the expected rates of DFU used in our sample size calculations were not met. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02373592 (27/02/2015)

Barriers to diabetic foot care in a disadvantaged population: A qualitative assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 107688
Author(s):  
Maya Fayfman ◽  
Marcos C. Schechter ◽  
Chimora N. Amobi ◽  
Rebekah N. Williams ◽  
JoAnna L. Hillman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Disadvantaged Population

scholarly journals Social and geographical inequalities in the choice of foot therapy as preventive care: A nationwide registry study on Danish people with diabetes

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Marie Bækø Halling ◽  
Jacob Ladenburg
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Registry Study ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Remote Areas ◽  
Geographical Inequalities ◽  
Rural And Remote Areas ◽  
Nationally Representative

Diabetic foot ulcers are a serious complication of diabetes with high costs and adverse sequelae, such as lower-extremity amputations. International guidelines recommend that all people with diabetes should have their feet inspected at least once a year. This study is aimed at determining whether socioeconomic factors influence the probability of having the feet inspected by a chiropodist on a nationally representative sample of people with diabetes. We estimate a logit model for the choice determinants of foot inspections among people with diabetes. Of all people with diabetes, 73% have not had their feet inspected by a chiropodist. The results indicate social and geographical inequality with regard to diabetic foot care. Especially for ethnic minorities, people with low income and people living in rural and remote areas. The findings are robust to a series of sensitivity analyses.Published: Online October 2019.

New Recommendations for Diabetic Foot Care Issued

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
MARK S. LESNEY
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Care

The effect of a multidisciplinary outpatient team approach on outcomes in diabetic foot care: a single center study

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline Huizing ◽  
Michiel A. Schreve ◽  
Willemijn Kortmann ◽  
Jan P. Bakker ◽  
Jean-Paul P. M. de Vries ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Single Center Study ◽  
Center Study

Diabetic Foot Care: Financial Implications and Practice Guidelines

Diabetes Care ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. E. Reiber
Keyword(s):  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Care

Bacterial Diversity, Antibiotic Resistance, and the Risk of Lower Limb Amputation in Younger and Older Individuals With Diabetic Foot Infection

2021 ◽  
pp. 153473462199229
Author(s):  
Stefan Dörr ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Holland-Letz ◽  
Gregor Weisser ◽  
Apostolos Chatzitomaris ◽  
Ralf Lobmann
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Diversity ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Bacterial Load ◽  
Limb Amputation ◽  
Older Individuals ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infection

Introduction A diabetic foot infection (DFI) contributes to high mortality and morbidity in diabetics due to its often rapid progressive and intricately treatable infection. DFIs are usually a polymicrobial infection and characterizing the entire bacterial load is still challenging. Prompt and effective treatment of DFI is nevertheless mandatory to safe limbs and lives. It is therefore crucial to know the local pathogen spectrum and its antibiotic susceptibility. Methods and Material For a 12-month period, we investigated 353 individuals with infected diabetic foot ulcer, their bacterial diversity, and antimicrobial susceptibility at fist-time visit in a Diabetic Foot Care Center in southern Germany. Results Cultures yielded 888 species, most of them gram-positive cocci (primary Staphylococcus aureus). The gram-negative sector was mainly formed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriacae. Because the prevalence of multiresistant species was surprisingly low (0.9% of isolated strains), we suggest penicillins with β-lactamase inhibitor in case of gram-positive–dominated infection or piperacillin/tazobactam or rather carbapenems with equal efficacy when gram-negative species are involved.

scholarly journals Differences in initial versus recurrent diabetic foot ulcers at a specialized tertiary diabetic foot care center in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 030006052098739
Author(s):  
Yuxia Cheng ◽  
Ping Zu ◽  
Jie Zhao ◽  
Lintao Shi ◽  
Hongyan Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Blood Glucose Control ◽  
Diabetes Duration ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Vascular Intervention ◽  
History Of ◽  
Independent Risk Factors ◽  
Recurrence Group

Objective To investigate the characteristics of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) recurrence. Methods A total of 573 patients with DFUs were recruited and divided into an initial group (395 patients) and a recurrence group (178 patients). The factors related to recurrence were analyzed using multivariate regression. Results The recurrence group had longer diabetes duration (odds ratio [OR] 192; 95% confidence interval 120, 252 vs. 156; 96, 240); lower glycated hemoglobin levels (OR 8.1; 95% CI 6.8, 9.6 vs. 9.1; 7.4, 10.5), and higher rates than the initial group of amputation (37.5% vs. 2.0%), history of vascular intervention (21.3% vs. 3.9%), retinopathy (77.7% vs. 64.7%), callus (44.4% vs. 20.8%), foot deformity (51.2% vs. 24.6%), and outdoor sports shoe wearing (34.0% vs. 21.2%). Multiple factor logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes duration (OR 1.004), callus (OR 2.769), vascular intervention (OR 2.824) and amputation (OR 22.256) were independent risk factors for DFU recurrence. Conclusion Diabetes duration, callus, history of vascular intervention, and amputation were independent risk factors for recurrent DFUs in a cohort of Chinese patients with active DFU. The prevention and treatment of DFUs, especially callus treatment, foot care, and blood glucose control, should be improved in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document