Diabetes Footcare in a Rural Community: Footcare Education and Outreach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Foot care self-management is critical in continuity of care and in prevention of foot complications associated with diabetes. The purpose of this project was to help residents in a rural Canadian community gain a better understanding foot care self-management.\nMethods: This project aimed to implement and evaluate evidence-based education in self-foot care among adults in with diabetes or pre-diabetes who live in Vegreville. Educational sessions were held in person based on the framework of the Social Cognitive Theory. Recruitment occurred over five months in collaboration with community housing centers. The goals focused on evidenced based education in daily foot care and footwear. Data was collected from the pre and post intervention survey questionnaire.\nResults: Despite vigorous recruitment due to the pandemic, there were only three participants. Self-foot care practice changes were assessed using descriptive statistics and open-ended questions. Following footcare educational sessions, findings highlight increase frequency of examining feet and checking shoes. Overall, there was a 22% increase in knowledge in the post education intervention score based on the Nottingham Assessment of Functional Footcare Revised.\nConclusions: Information about diabetes foot care self-maintenance has important public health and nursing implications. Evidence-based educational community approaches can be facilitated as outreach efforts to promote footcare outcomes among adults with diabetes or pre-diabetes. Future recommendations include continuing to advance this quality improvement project through informational sessions, nursing student education, continuing efforts in foot care in rural communities and to explore health service delivery education components within the community.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".