The effect of a mobile application on the foot care of individuals with type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled study

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to develop an animation-supported Mobile Diabetic Foot Care Education (M-DFCE) application for use by individuals with type 2 diabetes and identify its effects on knowledge, self-efficacy and foot care behaviour. Design: Randomised, controlled experimental study. Setting and Method: The study was carried out between October 2016 and September 2017. The sample consisted of 130 individuals with diabetes (65 in the experimental group and 65 in the control group). The experimental group received M-DFCE. Data were collected using the Patient Assessment Form, the Diabetes Foot Knowledge Questionnaire, the Diabetic Foot Care Self-Efficacy Scale and the Foot Self-Care Behaviour Scale. Differences between the groups were examined using Student’s t, Mann–Whitney U, Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Paired Sample tests. Results: Although there was no difference between the groups at initial evaluation, individuals in the experimental group who received animation-supported M-DFCE had significantly higher knowledge, self-efficacy and foot care behaviour levels than the control group. Conclusion: The animation-supported mobile application developed for foot care education was effective in increasing the individuals’ knowledge, self-efficacy and behaviour with respect to foot care.

Direct, Indirect and Mixed Methods of Health Education By Nurse and Its Impact on Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Literature review

“…Asante et a l., 2020, further explained that health education interventions using mobile phones can increase the compliance of type 2 diabetic patients in self-care (diet, activity/exercise and foot care) and control HbA1c levels or improve short-to midle term glycemic management of diabetic patients with type2. This finding is supported by research conducted by (Dincer and Bahçecik, 2021) that health education using mobile phones has an impact on increasing knowledge, self-efficacy and lower limb/foot care behavior.…”

The Effect of Foot Care Education for Patients with Diabetes on Knowledge, Self-Efficacy and Behavior: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…While Ahmad Sharoni et al used Power Point presentation and a pamphlet at least 30 min in their study, 50 Cicek and Gokdogan conducted face-to-face trainings that lasted at least 2 h, 41 whereas Kilic and Karadağprovided training to patients through a mobile application that was available for a maximum of 6 months, 39 Dincer and Bahçecik provide same method only one month. 48 High heterogeneity may be due to the fact that a standard educational intervention was not implemented. In the studies, diabetic foot training was conducted in different ways, such as through individual and/or group sessions and face-to-face training, and telemedicine.…”

“…Twenty-six 23–48 studies were included in this systematic review and 9 studies were included in this meta-analysis to synthesize randomized controlled trials examining the effect of foot care education on knowledge, self-efficacy and behavior in patients with diabetes, and while positive changes were found in the knowledge levels and behaviors of patients after the education, no significant changes were observed in self-efficacy. There are studies in the literature on diabetic foot management and education but no evidence-based studies, in which knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavior regarding diabetic foot care were examined together, to the best of our knowledge.…”

“…Examining the included studies, 23,32,37,39,41,42,45,46,48 low risk of bias was found in four 32,39,42,45 of the randomized controlled trials in which information, self-efficacy and behavior of patients were examined. In addition to these, there were studies with a low risk of bias aimed only at increasing the level of knowledge 42 and self-efficacy.…”

Effectiveness of educational interventions for diabetes‐related foot disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Overall, 14 trials were deemed to be at high risk of bias, 23,24,26,29,30,32,34,36,37,42,45,[47][48][49] 14 as having some risk of bias, 21,22,25,27,28,31,33,[38][39][40][41]43,44,46 and only one as low risk of bias (Figure 2). 35 A high risk of bias was commonly identified with the methods of randomisation, lack of allocation concealment, inappropriate analyses, missing data, and uncertainty on the integrity of DROVANDI ET AL.…”