Prioritizing the Prevention of Diabetic Foot Disease: We Each Have a Role to Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals living with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at an increased risk for multiple serious health complications including diabetic foot disease (DFD). Daily, DFD contributes to increased morbidity, mortality, increased hospitalization, limb amputation, and reduced quality of life. Prevention of DFD is a foundational component of diabetes management. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore how individuals manage the care required to protect their feet from DM related foot complications. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study utilized semi structured interviews to explore the perspectives of 23 participants on preventing foot care complications associated with DM. All data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants were challenged to consistently make health choices that were congruent with recommended DM self-management for the prevention of DFD. In addition, participants intuited multiple mixed messages from healthcare providers and workplaces that appeared to diminish their individual responsibility to self-manage their DM. Findings were organized under two main themes: a) Ineffective coping: Distancing self from disease b) Vacillating responsibility: Multiple mixed messages. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses are in a unique position to provide the education and support needed to assist individuals in carrying out the many recommended self-care strategies to reduce the risk of DFD. Contextually, nurses must encourage consistent messaging among health care providers and workplaces to prioritize the health needs of individuals living with diabetes and to support the challenging work these individuals must navigate every day. It will take a concerted effort to reinforce the message that diabetes care is a priority for everyone.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".