A Protocol for a Scoping Review to assess the influence of psychological factors on the development and progression of diabetes-related foot ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p> Introduction Diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFUs) are a major complication of diabetes and are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Psychological factors have been found to play a role in wound healing (Frasier <ns3:italic>et al.</ns3:italic> , 2024; Robinson <ns3:italic>et al.</ns3:italic> , 2017; Walburn <ns3:italic>et al.</ns3:italic> , 2009) 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 A recent Cochrane review by McGloin <ns3:italic>et al.</ns3:italic> (2021) examined existing psychological interventions for individuals with DFU and emphasized the need for more interventions and stronger study designs to evaluate their efficacy. Building on this, the proposed scoping review aims to: 1) Investigate the emotional consequences and burdens of living with DFU, and 2) Examine how psychosocial factors influence the 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 and social support have been identified as variables that may negatively affect DFU healing, there is a need for a greater understanding of how variables such as these may influence progression and recurrence. This review will comprise of a broad and systematically mapped synthesis of the identified data. Following this review, qualitative studies will be conducted, and their findings, along with those from the scoping review, will inform the development of a psychological intervention that will aim to improve psychosocial functioning and mitigate the progression and recurrence of DFUs. </ns3:p>
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".