Poster 33 Preventing Further Amputation in Adult Diabetic Amputee
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
D. Berbrayer, No Disclosures: I Have No Relevant Financial Relationships to Disclose. To identify strategies used by diabetic lower extremity amputees to prevent further amputation. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on diabetic amputees >18 years registered at an academic hospital. A 26-question self-administered questionnaire was used to obtain information on demographics, clinical characteristics, foot care, lifestyle modifications, compliance with medication and blood glucose monitoring. Questions were selected from Summary of Diabetic Self-Care Activities Measure. Academic Teaching Hospital. Type 2 diabetics (>18 years) with amputation. 26 Question Diabetic Self Care Questionnaire administered. Information on demographics, clinical characteristics foot care, lifestyle, compliance with medication and blood glucose monitoring obtained from Diabetic Self Care Questionnaire. Ten type 2 diabetes mellitus participants -mean age of participants was 61 years. 80% were male. 50% were single. 80% living with family. 80% annual income of 0-$19,999. 60% had college or university education. The mean body mass index was 32 kg/m. Participants were diagnosed with diabetes 17 years ago, and received a lower limb amputation 3 years ago. Mean time between diagnosis and amputation was 14 years. 90% of participants had a transtibial amputation, and 10% had a transfemoral amputation. 50% participants checked their feet on a daily basis within the past week. 50% wore special shoes. 40% wore socks. 20% compliant with blood sugar monitoring. 40% walked 30 minutes/week. Overall, compliance with foot care was poor among diabetic amputees. Adherence to eating plan and regular physical activity was also low. Healthcare providers should improve self-care among diabetic amputees through various education methods. Healthcare professionals should ensure discussion of foot care and general diabetes self-management with a patient after an amputation, and repeat discussion of self-care at follow-up appointments. Literature suggests face-to-face education of self-care is more effective than other information delivery methods, and that the use of booster sessions improved clinical outcomes. Interactive education methods have been shown to have higher effectiveness on patient behavior comparing to didactic sessions. Diabetic patients had equally poor foot care after and before an amputation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».