Behaviour change approaches for individuals with diabetes to improve foot self-management: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes related foot complications are increasing in complexity, frequency and cost. The application of self-management strategies can reduce the risk of individuals developing foot complications. The type, range and nature of the literature focusing on interventions that support patients with diabetic foot self-management is unknown. This scoping review aimed to i) identify self-management actions and risky behaviour avoidance strategies within interventions, ii) map the theoretical functions through which these behaviour change interventions have an effect, iii) display gaps in the research. METHODOLOGY: Arksey and Malley's (2003) 5 stage framework was followed to conduct the scoping study. This methodological framework was selected because it was developed specifically for scoping reviews and therefore offered clear methodological distinction from systematic review methodology. . Databases were searched from inception of the project until June 2020 supplemented by hand searching of reference lists. In total 988 papers were identified. These were independently screened by three reviewers, identifying 19 eligible papers. Data extraction and charting of data was independently conducted by three reviewers to identify study characteristics, self-management actions and risky behaviours. Data was charted against the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model of behaviour to determine intervention function. RESULTS: In total 25 different foot self-management actions and risk behaviours were classified into three themes; routine self-management, trauma avoidance and warning signs and actions. Inspect feet daily received the most attention. The majority of interventions focused on knowledge and skills, but overlooked taking action and decision making. Intervention mapping identified four primary intervention functions (education, persuasion, training and enablement) used to address deficits in capability, opportunity and motivation that positively improved foot self-management behaviour. No studies targeted first ulcer prevention, and most either did not measure or improve foot health outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review charted the evidence for interventions promoting diabetic foot self-management through a theoretical behaviour change perspective. A core set of behaviour change activities and intervention functions associated with positive changes in behaviour were identified. This information will provide researchers with a useful basis for developing self-management interventions.

Chemokine (C-C Motif) Receptor 2 Mediates Dendritic Cell Recruitment to the Human Colon but Is Not Responsible for Differences Observed in Dendritic Cell Subsets, Phenotype, and Function Between the Proximal and Distal Colon.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most knowledge about gastrointestinal (GI)-tract dendritic cells (DC) relies on murine studies where CD103+ DC specialize in generating immune tolerance with the functionality of CD11b+/- subsets being unclear. Information about human GI-DC is scarce, especially regarding regional specifications. Here, we characterized human DC properties throughout the human colon. METHODS: Paired proximal (right/ascending) and distal (left/descending) human colonic biopsies from 95 healthy subjects were taken; DC were assessed by flow cytometry and microbiota composition assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. RESULTS: Colonic DC identified were myeloid (mDC, CD11c+CD123-) and further divided based on CD103 and SIRPα (human analog of murine CD11b) expression. CD103-SIRPα+ DC were the major population and with CD103+SIRPα+ DC were CD1c+ILT3+CCR2+ (although CCR2 was not expressed on all CD103+SIRPα+ DC). CD103+SIRPα- DC constituted a minor subset that were CD141+ILT3-CCR2-. Proximal colon samples had higher total DC counts and fewer CD103+SIRPα+ cells. Proximal colon DC were more mature than distal DC with higher stimulatory capacity for CD4+CD45RA+ T-cells. However, DC and DC-invoked T-cell expression of mucosal homing markers (ß7, CCR9) was lower for proximal DC. CCR2 was expressed on circulating CD1c+, but not CD141+ mDC, and mediated DC recruitment by colonic culture supernatants in transwell assays. Proximal colon DC produced higher levels of cytokines. Mucosal microbiota profiling showed a lower microbiota load in the proximal colon, but with no differences in microbiota composition between compartments. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal colonic DC subsets differ from those in distal colon and are more mature. Targeted immunotherapy using DC in T-cell mediated GI tract inflammation may therefore need to reflect this immune compartmentalization.