The effectiveness of foot care educational interventions for people living with diabetes mellitus: An umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes Mellitus is a public health problem becoming more prevalent. Diabetic foot is a debilitating condition caused by diabetes mellitus. Diabetic foot, which includes foot ulceration, infection, and destruction of tissues may necessitate amputation. AIM: The aim of this review is to derive evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of foot care educational interventions, directly aimed at people living with diabetes. METHODS: A systematic search was implemented using biomedical citation databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Major repositories of systematic reviews such as the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the PROSPERO register were also searched. The search also included a grey literature search and manual searches of reference lists contained within review studies and other relevant published reviews. The umbrella review searched for articles published from January 2016 to 2021 to ensure sources were current and reflected the most recent interventions. RESULTS: This umbrella review is the first to collect and summarise the evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of foot care educational interventions directly aimed at people living with diabetes. It reports findings from nine systematic reviews on the evaluation of foot care educational interventions. The number of studies included in each review ranged from 6 to 81. A total of 314 primary studies were included. After examining the overlap between studies reported in multiple reviews, 82 were included in the final review. Without providing effective and consistent preventive and prophylactic foot care, creating, and testing interventions, integrating the concept into practice will remain challenging. CONCLUSION: Currently, most educational foot care intervention programmes concentrate on a single intervention. However, there is insufficient evidence that a single educational intervention effectively reduces the occurrence of ulcers and amputations or improves patients' knowledge and behaviour. Two studies used complex interventions, and they reduced the incidence amputation and foot ulceration incidence for people living with diabetes.

Health Education Programmes to Improve Foot Self-Care Knowledge and Behaviour among Older People with End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) Receiving Haemodialysis (A Systematic Review).

BACKGROUND: ESKD is a total or near-permanent failure in renal function. It is irreversible, progressive and ultimately fatal without peritoneal dialysis (PD), haemodialysis (HD) or kidney transplantation. Dialysis treatments can create new and additional problems for patients, one of which is foot amputation, as a result of non-healing wounds and vascular complications. The association between dialysis therapy and foot ulceration is linked to several factors: physical and psychological health; peripheral arterial disease (PAD); mobility; tissue oxygenation; manual dexterity; neuropathy; visual acuity; anaemia; nutrition; leg oedema; hypoalbuminemia; infection; inadequacy of dialysis; and leg/foot support during dialysis. The potential risk factors for foot ulceration may include: not routinely receiving foot care education; incorrect use of footwear; diabetes duration; neuropathy; and peripheral arterial disease. AIM: The aim of this review is to examine the factors that help or hinder successful implementation of foot care education programmes for ESKD patients receiving haemodialysis. METHOD: A comprehensive literature search was completed using five electronic databases. Medline; CINAHL; Embase; PsycINFO; and Cochrane Library. The Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI) was used to quality appraise full text papers included in the review. The systematic review was not limited to specific categories of interventions to enable optimal comparison between interventions and provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence in this important field of foot care. RESULTS: We found no previously published studies that considered foot care education programmes for haemodialysis patients who are not diabetic; thus, the present systematic review examined four studies on diabetic patients receiving haemodialysis exposed to foot care education programmes from various types of intervention designs. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review has provided evidence that it is possible to influence foot care knowledge and self-care behaviours in both diabetic patients receiving haemodialysis and healthcare professionals.