Systematic review of community pharmacy–based and pharmacist-led foot care interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To prevent diabetic foot disease, proper foot care is essential for early detection and treatment. Pharmacists are well suited to provide accessible foot care to adults with type 2 diabetes. Limited research has examined this role. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of community pharmacy-based and pharmacist-led foot care interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes compared to usual care. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Google Scholar, plus Google and hand-searching. Original research studies reported in English, focused on community pharmacy-based or pharmacist-led foot care interventions were eligible for review. Participants were adults with type 2 diabetes. Studies were summarized narratively; pooled data were not possible. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this review, 3 focusing on improving foot self-care behaviours and 4 on promoting foot examinations by the health care provider. Only 2 studies were randomized and were assessed as high quality. Six out of 7 studies reported significantly positive findings related to foot care practices. DISCUSSION: An opportunity to influence foot care exists at each clinical encounter. Pharmacists are accessible health care practitioners and appropriate to provide a range of diabetes foot care interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Seven studies examined community pharmacy-based and pharmacist-led foot care interventions for people with type 2 diabetes. Community pharmacies and pharmacists are capable of providing a variety of foot care interventions to patients with diabetes, helping detect problems early and leading to prompt intervention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".