An educational intervention on foot self‐care behaviour among diabetic retinopathy patients with visual disability and their primary caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a 12-week educational intervention on foot self-care behaviour among diabetic retinopathy patients with visual disability and their primary caregivers in China. BACKGROUND: Diabetes with the coexistence of diabetic retinopathy and foot problems complicating diabetes not only represents a personal disaster, but also becomes a serious burden to public health in China. A foot self-care educational intervention is both cost-effective and feasible even in a health resource-limited setting, which should be developed and evaluated. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental. METHODS: From July-September 2017, we enrolled 80 eligible hospitalised diabetic retinopathy patients and their primary caregivers by convenient sampling method in a first-class comprehensive hospital in Nantong, in China. Before and after the educational intervention that is in accordance with the TREND statement (for details, see the "Supplementary File 1"), researchers and subjects filled out the self-designed questionnaire on foot problems complicating diabetes and the Diabetic Foot Self-care Behavior Scale, respectively. RESULTS: Scores of foot self-care behaviour among the subjects significantly improved from 54.19 ± 8.01-75.85 ± 5.04. The number of patients with fasting blood glucoses <7.0 mmol/L improved from 43 (53.75%)-80 (100%). The results of incidence of foot problems complicating diabetes were not statistically significant. The complete execution of each item in Diabetic Foot Self-care Behavior Scale of subjects was apparently higher. CONCLUSIONS: This educational intervention can facilitate positive foot self-care behaviours among the diabetic retinopathy patients with visual disability and their primary caregivers in China. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study adds to the evidence of the effectiveness of an educational intervention to foster positive foot self-care behaviours. This educational intervention appears to be prospective in promoting diabetic home-based self-management in China, and the delivery method of the intervention may be applied to other chronic diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".