Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Aust J Rural Health ; 31(4): 690-703, 2023 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37092611

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Secondary prevention is essential in reducing recurrence of diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) but is frequently poorly implemented in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of people with diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) on their self-perceived knowledge in managing DFD, facilitators and barriers influencing their DFD care, and ideas and preferences for a secondary prevention program. DESIGN: Sixteen people with a history of DFD from Queensland and Victoria, Australia, underwent semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded over telephone and transcribed and analysed following a thematic framework. Participants were asked about their experiences and perceptions relating to DFD and factors influencing the care they receive for DFD relevant to the development of a secondary prevention program for DFD. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: Participants had high self-perceived knowledge in managing DFD, especially in implementing healthy lifestyle changes and conducting daily foot checks and foot care, though most received support from family members acting as carers. However, issues with access and adherence to offloading footwear, and a lack of clear education received on footwear and other aspects of DFD care were perceived as major barriers. Improved patient education, provided in a consistent manner by proactive clinicians was perceived as an essential part of secondary prevention. Telehealth was perceived positively through facilitating faster care and considered a good adjunct to standard care. Health and technological literacy were considered potentially major barriers to the effectiveness of remote care. CONCLUSION: People with DFD require improved access to offloading footwear and education about secondary prevention, which could be provided by telehealth with adequate support.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetic Foot , Foot Diseases , Humans , Diabetic Foot/prevention & control , Secondary Prevention , Foot Diseases/prevention & control , Victoria
2.
Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care ; 49(3): 217-228, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37114642

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to understand patient perspectives about the impact and prevention of diabetes-related foot disease (DFD). METHODS: An online survey was distributed to patients with a history of DFD during 2020. The survey was designed alongside clinical specialists and DFD patients and utilized the health belief model. It asked about the impact of DFD on health, perceptions on preventive strategies, perceived need for additional support, and patient preferences for telehealth in DFD management. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively and compared between groups. Open-text responses were analyzed using conceptual content analysis. RESULTS: Of 80 participants with a history of DFD, foot ulcers were the complication most often experienced, with over two-thirds having been admitted to hospital for a DFD-related issue and over one-third having a DFD-related amputation. Participants had ranging perceptions on the effect of DFD on health, from minimal to crippling. Those with previous severe DFD complications leading to hospital admission found a lack of mobility and independence the consequences of most concern. Using offloading footwear was perceived as very important for preventing DFD complications, although the use of offloading footwear was low, with participants citing issues relating to cost, comfort, appearance, and access to footwear as barriers to better adherence. Perceptions on telehealth were mixed, with many participants not having access to or being comfortable with the use of digital technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DFD require additional supports for effective prevention, including offloading footwear.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetic Foot , Foot Ulcer , Humans , Amputation, Surgical , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetic Foot/epidemiology , Diabetic Foot/prevention & control , Foot Ulcer/complications , Foot Ulcer/prevention & control , Hospitalization , Patients , Cost of Illness , Quality of Life
3.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 17(1): 59-69, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34008448

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) management requires input from multiple healthcare professionals, and has worse outcomes for people living in remote localities by comparison to urban areas. Remotely delivered healthcare may reduce this disparity. This overview summarizes current evidence on the effectiveness, stakeholder perceptions, and cost-effectiveness of remotely delivered healthcare for DFD. METHODS: A search of 5 databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews published between January 2000 and June 2020. Eligible reviews were those evaluating remotely delivered monitoring or management of patients at risk of or with active DFD, or clinicians managing these patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: Eight reviews were eligible for inclusion, including 88 primary studies and 8509 participants, of which 36 studies involving 4357 participants evaluated remotely delivered monitoring or management of DFD. Only one review had a low risk of bias, with most reviews demonstrating limited search strategies and poor reporting of participants. Evidence on effectiveness was mixed, with meta-analyses demonstrating long-term ulcer healing and mortality were not significantly different between telehealth and standard care groups, although the lower-limb amputation rate was significantly decreased in one meta-analysis. Perceptions of telehealth by patients and clinicians were generally positive, whilst acknowledging limitations relating to access and use. Cost-effectiveness data were limited, with poor reporting preventing clear conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Remotely delivered healthcare of DFD is well received by patients and clinicians, but its effectiveness is unclear. High quality trials are needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of remotely delivered DFD management.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Foot Diseases , Telemedicine , Humans , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Amputation, Surgical
4.
Int J Low Extrem Wounds ; : 15347346221099798, 2022 May 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35578540

ABSTRACT

This study explored health professionals' perceptions of current issues and opportunities for the secondary prevention of diabetes-related foot disease (DFD), and potential strategies for improving DFD care. From May to October 2020, relevant Australian health professionals completed an online survey which used ordinal scales, ranking questions, and open text fields to assess perceptions about the importance of aspects of secondary prevention for DFD and elements for a prevention program. Quantitative data were summarised and compared between professions using non-parametric tests, and qualitative data was analysed using conceptual content analysis to identify emerging themes. Perceptions from 116 health professionals with experience in managing patients with DFD were obtained, including 69 podiatrists, 21 vascular surgeons, 16 general practitioners, and ten nurses. Access and adherence to appropriate offloading footwear was perceived as a key element for effective DFD care, and believed to be affected by social and economic factors, such as the cost of footwear, as well as patient-related factors, such as motivation to wear footwear and adhere to other medical therapies. In addition to a lack of patient motivation and financial limitations, health professionals also believed patients lacked an understanding of the likelihood and severity of DFD recurrence. Several elements of care were perceived as missing from practice, including psychological support and ways to improve footwear adherence, with health professionals identifying several strategies for the design and implementation of an effective secondary prevention program. Prospective trials evaluating secondary prevention programs are required to determine the most effective means for preventing DFD recurrence.

5.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 13: 848695, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35370974

ABSTRACT

Background: Remotely delivered interventions may be more efficient in controlling multiple risk factors in people with diabetes. Purpose: To pool evidence from randomized controlled trials testing remote management interventions to simultaneously control blood pressure, blood glucose and lipids. Data Sources: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until 20th June 2021. Study Selection: Included RCTs were those that reported participant data on blood pressure, blood glucose, and lipid outcomes in response to a remotely delivered intervention. Data Extraction: Three authors extracted data using a predefined template. Primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP & DBP). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration RoB-2 tool. Meta-analyses are reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Data Synthesis: Twenty-seven RCTs reporting on 9100 participants (4581 intervention and 4519 usual care) were included. Components of the remote management interventions tested were identified as patient education, risk factor monitoring, coaching on monitoring, consultations, and pharmacological management. Comparator groups were typically face-to-face usual patient care. Remote management significantly reduced HbA1c (SMD -0.25, 95%CI -0.33 to -0.17, p<0.001), TC (SMD -0.17, 95%CI -0.29 to -0.04, p<0.0001), LDL-c (SMD -0.11, 95%CI -0.19 to -0.03, p=0.006), SBP (SMD -0.11, 95%CI -0.18 to -0.04, p=0.001) and DBP (SMD -0.09, 95%CI -0.16 to -0.02, p=0.02), with low to moderate heterogeneity (I²= 0 to 75). Twelve trials had high risk of bias, 12 had some risk and three were at low risk of bias. Limitations: Heterogeneity and potential publication bias may limit applicability of findings. Conclusions: Remote management significantly improves control of modifiable risk factors. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=258433], identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021258433).


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Dyslipidemias , Hyperglycemia , Hypertension , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Dyslipidemias/therapy , Humans , Hyperglycemia/prevention & control , Hypertension/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
6.
Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care ; 48(5): 349-361, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35837980

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of health professionals regarding the ideal design of a remotely delivered diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) secondary prevention program. METHODS: A qualitative study involving 33 semistructured phone interviews was conducted with health professionals with experience managing DFD. Interviews discussed the role of health professionals in managing DFD, their experience in using telehealth, perceived management priorities, preferences for a secondary prevention management program, and perceived barriers and facilitators for such a program. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and inductive thematic analysis was used to derive key themes. RESULTS: Three themes were derived: (1) barriers in current model of DFD care, (2) facilitators and ideas for a remotely delivered secondary prevention program, and (3) potential challenges in implementation. DFD care remains acute-care focused, with variability in access to care and a lack of "clinical ownership." Patients were perceived as often having poor knowledge and competing priorities, meaning engagement in self-care remains poor. Participants felt a remote secondary prevention program should be simple to follow and individualized to patients' context, with embedded support from a case manager and local multidisciplinary service providers. Challenges to implementation included limited DFD awareness, poor patient motivation, patient-related issues with accessing and using technology, and the inability to accurately assess and treat the foot over telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals felt that an ideal remotely delivered secondary prevention program should be tailored to patients' needs with embedded support from a case manager and complemented with multidisciplinary collaboration with local service providers.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Foot Diseases , Dapsone/analogs & derivatives , Diabetes Mellitus/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , Secondary Prevention
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL