The effectiveness of foot care educational interventions for people living with diabetes mellitus: An umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes Mellitus is a public health problem becoming more prevalent. Diabetic foot is a debilitating condition caused by diabetes mellitus. Diabetic foot, which includes foot ulceration, infection, and destruction of tissues may necessitate amputation. AIM: The aim of this review is to derive evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of foot care educational interventions, directly aimed at people living with diabetes. METHODS: A systematic search was implemented using biomedical citation databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Major repositories of systematic reviews such as the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the PROSPERO register were also searched. The search also included a grey literature search and manual searches of reference lists contained within review studies and other relevant published reviews. The umbrella review searched for articles published from January 2016 to 2021 to ensure sources were current and reflected the most recent interventions. RESULTS: This umbrella review is the first to collect and summarise the evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of foot care educational interventions directly aimed at people living with diabetes. It reports findings from nine systematic reviews on the evaluation of foot care educational interventions. The number of studies included in each review ranged from 6 to 81. A total of 314 primary studies were included. After examining the overlap between studies reported in multiple reviews, 82 were included in the final review. Without providing effective and consistent preventive and prophylactic foot care, creating, and testing interventions, integrating the concept into practice will remain challenging. CONCLUSION: Currently, most educational foot care intervention programmes concentrate on a single intervention. However, there is insufficient evidence that a single educational intervention effectively reduces the occurrence of ulcers and amputations or improves patients' knowledge and behaviour. Two studies used complex interventions, and they reduced the incidence amputation and foot ulceration incidence for people living with diabetes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".