IDF21-0049 ACT NOW a new diabetes foot educational and risk assessment tool for people with diabetes and health care professionals

Phillips, Anne; Edmonds, M E; Robbie, Jayne; Aldred, C.; Grumitt, J.; Walker, K.; Odiase, C.; Holmes, P.; Beckwith, Anita

doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109415

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We included 52 articles spanning 39 experimental16 31–68 and 13 non-experimental articles 17 69–80. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram81 was completed to record the number of papers identified, screened and included (figure 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focus: In experimental articles, 19 articles focused on diabetic foot care,31 33 34 39 43 45 47–50 55–57 60 61 63 64 67 68 and 20 articles focused on diabetes in general including foot care 16 32 35–38 40–42 44 46 51–54 58 59 62 65 66. In non-experimental articles, eight focused on diabetic foot care,69 71 73 74 76–79 and five articles focused on diabetes in general 17 70 72 75 80…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants: Seven experimental articles focused on training patients and healthcare providers,31 33 34 55 56 61 67 seven focused on patients and family or caregivers,32 39 40 48 54 63 64 six on healthcare providers including primary care and staff,35 38 49 50 60 66 and two articles focused on CHWs 42 47. Nine articles focused on programmes led by CHWs,16 36 37 41 46 51 52 57 62 four led by peers,44 58 65 68 two by staff,45 59 one by a multidisciplinary team43 and one programme led by educators 53.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methodology: In experimental studies, nine studies were methodological research studies,34 37 49 50 54 56 60 64 65 eight were observational studies,31 39 43 45 53 58 59 61 eight used qualitative approaches,32 40 41 44 46 55 57 67 seven used pre–post design,33 35 42 47 63 66 68 five were randomised controlled trials,16 36 48 52 62 and two studies used mixed methods 38 51. While in non-experimental articles, eight articles were commentary17 69 71 73 74 76–78 and five were reviews 70 72 75 79 80…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The researchers related these results to increased awareness among patients and care providers leading to increased referrals for treatment 31. The number of patients screened33 47 51 56 58 60 61 64 and the number of patients referred to healthcare services52 57 69 were also outcomes that reflected the impact of foot care programmes…”

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Upskilling programmes for unregulated care providers to provide diabetic foot screening for systematically marginalised populations: how, why and in what contexts do they work? A realist review

Hassan,

Rac,

Hodges

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWe aimed to understand how, why and in what context upskilling programmes for unregulated care providers (UCPs) to provide foot screening for systematically marginalised groups living with diabetes were implemented.DesignWe used realist synthesis based on Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards guidance.Data sourcesWe searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases and the grey literature (Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) up to November 2022.Eligibility criteriaWe included experimental and non-experimental articles in English that either described mechanisms or discussed expected outcomes for educational interventions for patients and family caregivers or healthcare providers, both regulated and unregulated. We also included articles that evaluated the impact of foot care programmes if the UCPs’ training was described.Data extraction and synthesisThe lead author extracted, annotated and coded uploaded relevant data to identify contexts, mechanisms and outcome configurations using MAXQDA (a qualitative data analysis software). We used deductive and inductive coding to structure the process. Our team members double-reviewed and appraised a random sample of 20% of articles at all stages to ensure consistency.ResultsOur search identified 52 articles. Evidence suggested the necessity of developing upskilling foot screening programmes within the context of preventive care programmes that also provide education in diabetes, and early referrals for appropriate interventions. Multidisciplinary programmes created an ideal context facilitating coordination between UCPs and their regulated counterparts. Engaging patients and community partners, using a competency-based model, and incorporating cultural competencies were determinants of success for these programmes.ConclusionThis review provides a realistic programme theory for the mechanisms used, the context in which these programmes were developed, and the expected outcomes to train UCPs to provide preventive foot care for systematically marginalised populations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022369208.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%