Awareness of foot care among patients with diabetes attending a tertiary care hospital.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of diabetes in India is rising. It is also occurring at a younger age. Ulcers on the foot in patients with diabetes are a common cause of amputations and are largely preventable. We assessed the awareness of foot care among patients with diabetes attending a tertiary care hospital in northern India and whether this varied with the level of healthcare availed, i.e. primary, secondary or tertiary. METHODS: A scored questionnaire was designed based on foot care practices advised by the American Diabetes Association as part of the national diabetes education programme. It was administered to 400 patients and a total foot care score was calculated and correlated with various variables. RESULTS: Only 50 of 400 patients (12.5%) had received previous foot care advice from healthcare professionals, and 193 (48.2%), 28 (7%) and 179 (44.8 %) patients were being taken care of by primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare systems, respectively. Almost one-quarter of patients were uneducated. The mean foot care score in all three groups was 5 of a maximum of 14, which was poor. CONCLUSION: The awareness of foot care among people with diabetes is low among those attending all levels of healthcare: primary, secondary and tertiary. It is necessary to educate people about foot care, lack of which will lead to a huge financial and health burden due to preventable complications of diabetes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".