Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Diabetic Patients Towards Foot Care at Al-Daraga Health Center, Wad Madani Al Kubra Locality, Gezira State, Sudan, (2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of foot ulcers ranges from 8% to 17 % [Crawford F, Inkster M, Kleijnen J, Fahey 2007]and others like peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease. Objectives: The aim of the study is to identify the knowledge, attitude and practice of diabetic patients on foot care. Patients and Methods: Across-sectional study of randomly selected 360 patients of diabetic patients that attend at Al-Daraga Health Center, Wad Madani, Al Kubra locality, Gezira state, during period of one-month 2020. Data was collected via face-to-face interviews by using questionnaire and analyzed by (SPSS). Results: The results showed that there is excellent knowledge about diabetes complications, complications (94,4%), and that there is high knowledge of taking medications regularly to prevent complications (82.2%), about practicing such as washing feet daily and changing socks daily. Consultation of doctors when any symptoms appeared were good with knowledge more than 50% of each. But there's lack of knowledge by more than 50% for things such as washing the feet by warm water with water temperature checked, and dried feet after washed. There is a lack of practicing with more than 50%, about things such as checking the feet daily and checking the shoes before wearing. Conclusion: Not only good knowledge is needed for footcare, but also good attitude and practice are needed. It is necessary to firstly develop awareness of diabetes and the related complications one amongst which is footcare. Certain educational strategies should be established for both doctors and the patients. I recommended establishing a program like group discussion to patients towards footcare. This study will be helpful in providing evidence regarding the importance of foots care and empowered within the diabetic population.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".