Psychological factors and diabetic foot ulceration: a scoping review of the bi-directional relationship between diabetic foot ulcer healing and mental health factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a major complication of diabetes and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Psychological factors are believed to play a role in wound healing, but it remains uncertain if psychological interventions can help individuals with an active DFU, or a history of DFUs, to achieve complete or improved wound healing or prevent recurrence. Objective The objective of the proposed scoping review is to investigate the emotional consequences/burden of living with DFU and to examine how psychosocial factors may impact progression and management of ulcerations. Methods This review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will guide the reporting of results. Discussion While factors such as stress, depression, social support, and adherence to treatment have been identified as variables that may negatively affect DFU healing, there is a need for a greater understanding of how psychological and behavioural variables such as these may influence ulcer incidence, healing and recurrence in people with diabetes. This review will comprise of a broad and systematically mapped synthesis of the identified data. Findings will be used to provide a better understanding of the bi-directional relationship between DFU and psychological variables and will provide direction for the development or adaptation of a tailored psychological intervention that will aim to optimise wellbeing and improve outcomes for individuals with DFU.
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 | 0.014 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".