Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present research aimed to evaluate practice and knowledge about foot care in patients of diabetes mellitus among two different Government hospitals and general community of Quetta city, Pakistan.Methodology: Questionnaire based cross sectional study conducted among general population and 2 different government hospitals diabetic patients and about 380 questionnaires were distributed among patients.Data gathered from April 2015 to September 2015.Pretested questionnaire was used to evaluate practice and knowledge of diabetic patients about foot care.Practice and knowledge scores were classified as poor and adequate, less than 50% for poor and greater than 50% for adequate.Descriptive and inferential statistics have been done by using SPSS version 20.Result: Of 380 questionnaires, 364 were returned.Majority 112 (30.8%) of respondents were from 46-55 years.Male gender dominated with 204 (56.0%).Marital status result showed that there were 323 (88.7%) married.Majority of respondents were from urban locality 269(73.9%).Majority of respondents 80 (22.0%) were educated.Majority of respondents 168 (46.2%) were having no job.58.8% respondents had adequate knowledge and 62.4% had poor practice of DM foot care.There is statically significance difference among occupation (p<0.001),locality (p<0.001),income (p<0.001)and Level of education (p<0.001) which shows static significance difference in knowledge and practice score.Conclusion: The result of the study shows poor practice and adequate knowledge in Diabetic patients about foot care; to enhance overall practice, it is necessary to make knowledge better and to reduce diabetes foot complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.826 | 0.781 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".