A Research Study To Determine The Foot Health Knowledge Of Patients With Diabetes Attending A Community Health Centre In Toronto Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives\nDiabetes is a growing concern in the context of an aging population. All patients with diabetes are potentially at risk for diabetic foot complications, including ulcerations and amputations. These complications can be prevented, if patients have the foot health knowledge, and by creating awareness about the importance of appropriate self-care practice. This underscores the need to determine if the patients received any foot health education, and to determine their level of foot health knowledge. In this study, seniors equal to and over the age of sixty-five years, who have diabetes mellitus either type one or type two irrespective of duration, were asked to answer questions to assess their knowledge of concepts in the questions relating to daily foot care; socks and shoes; and when to see their health care provider. In addition, this research study also had the purpose to help identify knowledge gaps in patient education, for targeted foot care service planning and delivery.\nMethod\nThe research tool that was devised for the purpose of this study was called the Diabetic Foot Survey. The content of this survey was taken from the Canadian Diabetes Association’s Consumer Fact Sheet. This survey only used closed-ended questions, with three multiple choice answer options. Since this survey had never been used before, it was therefore not validated. The survey was translated into three dominant primary preferred languages of service, indicated by the patient at the time of registration at the Parkdale Community Health Centre. Aside from English, the survey was available in Portugese, Chinese (Traditional), and Spanish. The postal survey method was used to collect data. Based on the participant feedback from the pilot project, three survey questions were modified prior to undertaking the research project, with the same potential participant population. There was a potential sample size of 120 participants. All patients who\nhad mental health issues, namely schizophrenia, bipolar, and dementia, and/or who were not able to provide informed consent, were excluded from this study.\nResults\nThere was a sixty-five percent response rate to the Diabetic Foot Survey. There were 83.33% of the respondents who indicated they have received foot health education. There were fifteen out of the twenty-two questions, where more than seventy percent of the respondents answered the questions correctly. There were seven out of the twenty-two questions, where less than seventy percent of the respondents answered the questions correctly. This indicated that the participant’s had the knowledge regarding the concepts in most of the questions, but lacked the knowledge of the concepts in the other questions. The results also revealed that there was a difference in the foot health knowledge of those who have and have not received foot health education. The group of respondents who received foot health education, consistently achieved a higher percentage of correct answers to each of the Diabetic Foot Survey questions, compared to the group of respondents who did not receive foot health education.\nConclusion\nThis research project showed the value and advantage of receiving foot health education, compared to not receiving it. There was a positive link: respondents who received foot health education had a higher percentage of correct answers, which indicated a higher level of foot health knowledge, compared to respondents who did not receive it. However, this study also clearly identified the respondent’s knowledge gap areas that required further education, which could NOT be accounted for by problems in the construction of the question, which specifically fall into the Diabetic Foot Survey sections of: daily foot care; and socks and shoes. Recommendations on the delivery of this education were made as a mitigation strategy. There were limitations to the project due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The research project results are therefore only generalizable to the population of seniors with diabetes at the Parkdale Community Health Centre.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».