Diabetic Foot Care: Knowledge and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The increase in prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is being associated with many complications among diabetic patients. Foot complications are a leading cause of mortality in developing countries. The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and practice of foot care among diabetes patients attending the Diabetic Center in Jazan Region, Saudi Arabia. Methods: Observational cross-sectional study was conducted among a random sample of 250 patients attending Jazan Diabetes Center. Structured questionnaires were administered by medical students to diabetic patients. The outcome variables were knowledge and practice regarding foot care. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics based on Chi-square test were used for data analysis. Results: The prevalence of diabetic foot (DF) among males and females was 58.0% and 52.9%, respectively, without significant difference between both sexes. Eighteen percent of study population reported history of foot ulcer. Almost 53.6% patients had good foot care knowledge. Gender, duration of DM, marital status and age had no significant association with knowledge. Males were more adherent to foot drying by 65.2%, while females are applying more attention to softening of skin by 72.3%. There were no significant differences between males and females regarding foot inspection, nail care, adherence to medication and shoes check. Conclusion: In conclusion, the knowledge and practice of foot care among DM patients in our study participants were not adequate. The result of this study has highlighted the gaps in their knowledge and practice and underscores the urgent need for a patient friendly educational intervention. It is important to activate the role of health education to everyone who has direct contact with the patient, to minimize the DF complications. J Endocrinol Metab. 2016;6(6):172-177 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem388e
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".