Impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on foot care services in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has directly affected the delivery of health care services in Canada, including foot care. The goal of this descriptive study was to understand the impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to April 2021) on chiropodists' and podiatrists' clinical practices and foot care service delivery in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A web-survey was completed by participating chiropodists and podiatrists registered with the College of Chiropodists of Ontario. The survey consisted of 31 multiple choice and open-ended items on clinical practice characteristics, foot care service delivery changes, perceived barriers during the pandemic, and its impact on clinicians. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and examine clinicians' responses, and qualitative content analysis was used to explore opened-ended items. RESULTS: Of the 773 eligible clinicians, 279 participated for a response rate of 36.1%. Most respondents reported a decline in patient volume, an increase in urgent foot health problems, a financial impact on their clinical practices, an emotional impact, and substantial changes to how they provided foot care services, such as incorporating telehealth/virtual care into patient care. Factors that impact clinicians' perception of future pandemic preparedness are identified. CONCLUSION: This study describes foot care service delivery in Ontario, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic saw an increase in urgent foot health problems, decline in patient volume, and impacted clinicians' mental health and emotional well-being. Future studies should examine patients' experiences of foot care service delivery and maintaining their foot health during the pandemic, and further examination of factors that impact clinicians' perception of pandemic preparedness.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".