MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392674202 · doi:10.2196/54852

Exploring the Pathways of Diabetes Foot Complications Treatment and Investigating Experiences From Frontline Health Care Professionals: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4392674202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisavet Andrikopoulou, Panagiotis Chatzistergos, Nachiappan Chockalingam

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineHealth careDiabetic footHealth professionalsQualitative researchNursingPodiatryDiabetes mellitusPsychologyAlternative medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetes affects more than 4.3 million individuals in the United Kingdom, with 19% to 34% developing diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU) during their lifespan, which can lead to an amputation. In the United Kingdom, every week, approximately 169 people have an amputation due to diabetes. Preventing first-ever ulcers is the most effective strategy to reduce the occurrence of diabetes-related amputations, but research in this space is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This protocol seeks to document the experiences and perspectives of frontline health care professionals who work with people who have diabetes and diabetes-related foot problems. Special attention is given to their perceptions of barriers to effective care, their views about barriers to effective and inclusive engagement with people with diabetes, and their experience with the first-ever DFU. Another aspect of the study is the focus on whether clinical management is affected by data sharing, data availability, and interoperability issues. METHODS: This is a mixed methods explanatory protocol, which is sequential, and its purpose is to use the qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative data collected through a survey of frontline health care professionals. Data analysis of quantitative data will be completed first and then synthesized with the qualitative data analysis. Qualitative data will be analyzed using the framework method. This study will use joint displays to integrate the data. Ethical approval has been granted by the ethics committee of Staffordshire University. RESULTS: The quantitative data collection started in March 2023 and will close in May 2024. The qualitative interviews commenced in November 2023 with volunteer participants who initially completed the survey. CONCLUSIONS: This study's survey focuses on data interoperability and the interviews focus more on the perspectives and experiences of clinicians and their perceived barriers for the effective management of diabetes foot ulcers. Including a geographically relevant and diverse cohort of health care professionals that spans a wide range of roles and care settings involved in diabetes-related foot care is very important for the successful application of this protocol. Special care is given to advertise and promote participation as widely as possible. The qualitative part of this protocol is also limited to 30-40 interview participants, as it is not realistic to interview higher numbers, due to time and resource constraints. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54852.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.621
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.024 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207