A Research Study To Determine The Foot Health Knowledge Of Patients With Diabetes Attending A Community Health Centre In Toronto Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives\nDiabetes is a growing concern in the context of an aging population. All patients with diabetes are potentially at risk for diabetic foot complications, including ulcerations and amputations. These complications can be prevented, if patients have the foot health knowledge, and by creating awareness about the importance of appropriate self-care practice. This underscores the need to determine if the patients received any foot health education, and to determine their level of foot health knowledge. In this study, seniors equal to and over the age of sixty-five years, who have diabetes mellitus either type one or type two irrespective of duration, were asked to answer questions to assess their knowledge of concepts in the questions relating to daily foot care; socks and shoes; and when to see their health care provider. In addition, this research study also had the purpose to help identify knowledge gaps in patient education, for targeted foot care service planning and delivery.\nMethod\nThe research tool that was devised for the purpose of this study was called the Diabetic Foot Survey. The content of this survey was taken from the Canadian Diabetes Association’s Consumer Fact Sheet. This survey only used closed-ended questions, with three multiple choice answer options. Since this survey had never been used before, it was therefore not validated. The survey was translated into three dominant primary preferred languages of service, indicated by the patient at the time of registration at the Parkdale Community Health Centre. Aside from English, the survey was available in Portugese, Chinese (Traditional), and Spanish. The postal survey method was used to collect data. Based on the participant feedback from the pilot project, three survey questions were modified prior to undertaking the research project, with the same potential participant population. There was a potential sample size of 120 participants. All patients who\nhad mental health issues, namely schizophrenia, bipolar, and dementia, and/or who were not able to provide informed consent, were excluded from this study.\nResults\nThere was a sixty-five percent response rate to the Diabetic Foot Survey. There were 83.33% of the respondents who indicated they have received foot health education. There were fifteen out of the twenty-two questions, where more than seventy percent of the respondents answered the questions correctly. There were seven out of the twenty-two questions, where less than seventy percent of the respondents answered the questions correctly. This indicated that the participant’s had the knowledge regarding the concepts in most of the questions, but lacked the knowledge of the concepts in the other questions. The results also revealed that there was a difference in the foot health knowledge of those who have and have not received foot health education. The group of respondents who received foot health education, consistently achieved a higher percentage of correct answers to each of the Diabetic Foot Survey questions, compared to the group of respondents who did not receive foot health education.\nConclusion\nThis research project showed the value and advantage of receiving foot health education, compared to not receiving it. There was a positive link: respondents who received foot health education had a higher percentage of correct answers, which indicated a higher level of foot health knowledge, compared to respondents who did not receive it. However, this study also clearly identified the respondent’s knowledge gap areas that required further education, which could NOT be accounted for by problems in the construction of the question, which specifically fall into the Diabetic Foot Survey sections of: daily foot care; and socks and shoes. Recommendations on the delivery of this education were made as a mitigation strategy. There were limitations to the project due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The research project results are therefore only generalizable to the population of seniors with diabetes at the Parkdale Community Health Centre.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".