Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of delivering healthy eating messages through an interactive health corner (HC) on improving healthy dietary habits in participants. Design/methodology/approach Self-administered questionnaires were administered to participants after the education session. In total, 5,292 valid questionnaires were obtained, yielding a response rate of 93.3 per cent. In the last three months of the pilot study, a random sample of 305 from 1,493 participants was chosen and followed up six months later. Bivariate analysis was used to study the association of knowledge gained and attitude. Behavioural change was measured in terms of whether participants had reported an increase in their consumption of healthier food. Findings Majority (>98 per cent) of participants reported that the HC corner was useful, and had helped increase their awareness and knowledge of creating healthier meals and making healthier food choices. 95.7 per cent were willing to make changes after visiting the HC. At six months follow-up, 84 per cent of the participants reported positive changes in their dietary habits. Those who made positive changes were younger (mean age: 58.0 years) compared with those who did not (mean age 61.0 years, p=0.035). Research limitations/implications Incorporating cooking demonstrations as part of nutrition education is effective in inculcating healthy eating practices and changing self-reported eating habits in the short term. Further research is needed to verify actual change in eating habits and to determine if this change is sustainable in the long run. Originality/value Currently, no similar initiative has been implemented and studied to evaluate the effectiveness of this mode of health promotion in a primary care setting. This study will help the authors to evaluate if the intervention was effective in changing attitudes and behaviours after an education session at the HC.

No abstract

Present guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) care, but relevant data from Asia are lacking. We aim to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of an MDT approach in a lower extremity amputation prevention programme (LEAPP) for DFU care in an Asian population. We performed a case-control study of 84 patients with DFU between January 2017 and October 2017 (retrospective control) vs 117 patients with DFU between December 2017 and July 2018 (prospective LEAPP cohort). Comparing the clinical outcomes between the retrospective cohort and the LEAPP cohort, there was a significant decrease in mean time from referral to index clinic visit (38.6 vs 9.5 days, P < .001), increase in outpatient podiatry follow-up (33% vs 76%, P < .001), decrease in 1-year minor amputation rate (14% vs 3%, P = .007), and decrease in 1-year major amputation rate (9% vs 3%, P = .05). Simulation of cost avoidance demonstrated an annualised cost avoidance of USD $1.86m (SGD $2.5m) for patients within the LEAPP cohort. In conclusion, similar to the data from Western societies, an MDT approach in an Asian population, via a LEAPP for patients with DFU,

Diabetic Foot in Primary and Tertiary (DEFINITE) Care is an inter‐institutional and multi‐disciplinary team (MDT) health systems innovation programme at a healthcare cluster in Singapore. We aim to achieve coordinated MDT care across primary and tertiary care for patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), within our public healthcare cluster ‐ an integrated network of seven primary care polyclinics and two acute care tertiary hospitals (1700‐bed and 800‐bed) with a total catchment population of 2.2 million residents. Results from prospective DEFINITE Care is referenced against a retrospective 2013–2017 cohort, which was previously published. Cardiovascular profile of the study population is compared against the same population's profile in the preceding 12 months. Between June 2020 and December 2021, there were 3475 unique patients with DFU with mean age at 65.9 years, 61.2% male, mean baseline HbA1c at 8.3% with mean diabetes duration at 13.3 years, mean diabetes complication severity index (DCSI) at 5.6 and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) at 6.8. In the 12‐months preceding enrolment to DEFINITE Care, 35.5% had surgical foot debridement, 21.2% had minor lower extremity amputation (LEA), 7.5% had major LEA whilst 16.8% had revascularisation procedures. At 18‐months after the implementation of DEFINITE Care programme, the absolute minor and major amputation rates were 8.7% (n = 302) and 5.1% (n = 176), respectively, equating to a minor and major LEA per 100000 population at 13.7 and 8.0, respectively. This represents an 80% reduction in minor amputation rates (P < .001) and a 35% reduction in major amputation rates (P = .005) when referenced against a retrospective 2013–2017 cohort, which had minor and major LEA per 100000 population at 68.9 and 12.4, respectively. As compared to the preceding 12 months, there was also a significant improvement in cardiovascular profile (glycemic and lipid control) within the DEFINITE population, with improved mean HbAc1 (7.9% from 8.4%, P < .001), low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) levels (2.1 mmol/L from 2.2, P < .001), total cholesterol (3.9 mmol/L from 4.1, P < .001) and triglycerides levels (1.6 mmol/L from 1.8, P = .002). Multivariate analysis revealed a history of minor amputation in the preceding 12 months to be an independent predictor for major and minor amputation within the study period of 18 months (Hazard Ratio 3.4 and 1.8, respectively, P < .001). In conclusion, within DEFINITE care, 18‐month data showed a significant reduction of minor and major LEA rates, with improved medical optimisation and cardiovascular profile within the study population.

The global disease burden of diabetes mellitus is high. It is well-established that prediabetes is reversible but it is unclear whether diabetes is reversible once it has been diagnosed. The objective of this narrative review is to review the evidence of reversibility of diabetes mellitus and stimulate interest in prolonged remission as a treatment target. The current evidence for bariatric surgery is stronger than intensive medical management and the evidence is stronger for type 2 diabetes patients compared with type 1 diabetes patients. It is also unclear whether non obese diabetes patients would benefit from such interventions and the duration of diabetes before diabetes become irreversible. Further research is needed in this area especially with regards to the subgroup of diabetes patient who will benefit from these interventions and the long term safety and efficacy remains unknown especially with intensive medical management.