Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes
Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes
Behaviour assessment scores, measured in all studies using newly developed and nonvalidated scoring lists, were also reported in those 3 RCTs (Barth et al, 1991; Krugeret al, 1992; Ronnemaa et al, 1997). The foot care behaviour of patients (e.g. washing,creaming, foot inspection, cutting toe nails, use of pumice stone, foot gymnastics)improved significantly at 6 months (Barth et al, 1991; Kruger et al, 1992) and oneyear (Ronnemaa et al, 1997).One RCT evaluated the effect of foot care education as part of general diabeteseducation in primary care (Bloomgarten et al, 1987). No significant effect was foundafter a follow up of approximately 1.5 years on the behaviour assessment scores (7questions on diabetes self care of which 1 asked how often the feet were checked forsores). Callus, nail dystrophy and fungal infections were not different betweenintervention and control groups after 1.5 years.One RCT evaluated the effect of a complex intervention that included patienteducation on foot care, in a primary care setting (Litzelman et al, 1993). Thisintervention was targeted at both patients and doctors. A significant positive effectwas found on patients' foot care behaviour.Two RCTs evaluated the effect of patient education, tailored to the educational needsof the patients (Mazzuca et al, 1986; Rettig et al, 1986). One was performed inprimary care (Mazzuca et al, 1986), the other study in the home environment (Rettiget al, 1986). In the first, foot care knowledge only was assessed at 1 year, and noeffect was found (Mazzuca et al, 1986). In the second, there was a statisticallysignificant improvement in foot care knowledge at 6 months follow up (Rettig et al,1986). However, no positive effects were found on foot appearance and foot careskills score.Mason et al (1999) reviewed 5 randomised footcare educational studies whichincluded people with Type 2 diabetes. They reached the conclusion that since therewere no consistent patterns in study methods or findings that it was necessary tointerpret the results of each study individually. Therefore studies which haveaddressesd this question are described in more detail below.Rettig et al (1986) evaluated the effects of an individualised diabetes self-care homeeducation programme. Of 471 people with Type 2 diabetes enrolled, 228 wereassigned to the home education group and 243 to the control group. After 6 monthsfootcare knowledge score was significantly higher among the intervention subjectscompared with the control subjects (62.2±1.7 v 53.1±1.8, p=0.001), but there were nodifferences in footcare skill score (71.8±2.0 v 68.9±1.8, p=NS) or foot appearancescore (70.2±0.7 v 68.8±0.7, p=NS). At 12 months there were no differences indiabetes-related hospitalisations between the2 groups.Bloomgarden et al (1987) evaluated a diabetes clinic education (general and footcare)programme in 266 people with insulin treated diabetes (127 in the education groupand 139 in the control group). There were no significant differences between groupsin type or duration of diabetes, insulin dosage, and educational background.Knowledge score (which did not include any question related to feet) increased in theeducation group (5.3±1.6 to 5.8±1.6) but did not change in the control group (5.3±1.7)60
(p=0.007). The behaviour score (which included 1 question about frequency of footinspection) improved in both groups (3.4±1.4 to 4.3±1.6; 3.6±1.6 to 4.1±1.6,respectively) (p=0.10). Among 83 people without foot lesion at the initial evaluationin the eduction group, 31 developed mild and 2 developed severe foot lesions duringthe 18 month period; while among 63 people without foot lesions in the control group,the corresponding number were 28 and 2, respectively (p=0.63).Barth et al (1991) compared a conventional group eduction programme with a similarprogramme which included 4 additional footcare sessions based on a cognitivemotivational technique in 70 Australian people with Type 2 diabetes with sub-optimalglucose control and who had not attended a diabetes education programme in the pastsix months. The intensive group showed a greater improvement than the conventionalgroup in footcare knowledge (p
- Page 9: • Aim to achieve the best possibl
- Page 12 and 13: Background - Peripheral Neuropathy
- Page 14 and 15: proportion of subjects with a durat
- Page 16 and 17: and an OR 1.1-7.8. This study also
- Page 18 and 19: Summary - Peripheral Neuropathy as
- Page 20 and 21: Section 2: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 22 and 23: predicting risk of amputation, 2.9
- Page 24 and 25: Summary - Peripheral Vascular Disea
- Page 26 and 27: Section 3: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 28 and 29: Evidence - Foot Deformity and Previ
- Page 30 and 31: people with both LJM and neuropathy
- Page 32 and 33: Summary - Foot Deformity and Previo
- Page 34 and 35: Section 4: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 36 and 37: Also in the Seattle study, 67 peopl
- Page 38 and 39: Summary - Ulcer as a Risk Factor fo
- Page 40 and 41: Section 5: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 42 and 43: The other frequently reported metho
- Page 44 and 45: side; and 82% having the same resul
- Page 46 and 47: Evidence Table: Section 5Detection
- Page 48 and 49: Background - Clinical Detection of
- Page 50 and 51: pulse was bilaterally absent in 1.8
- Page 52 and 53: Evidence Table: Section 6AuthorClin
- Page 54 and 55: Background - Frequency of Foot Exam
- Page 56 and 57: Summary - Frequency of Foot Examina
- Page 58 and 59: Section 8: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 62 and 63: Mazzuca et al (1986) studies 532 pe
- Page 64 and 65: with before the programme, after 1-
- Page 66 and 67: Evidence Table: Section 8AuthorEffe
- Page 68 and 69: Background - Glycaemic Control and
- Page 70 and 71: In a previous Japanese randomised s
- Page 72 and 73: Evidence Table: Section 9AuthorGlyc
- Page 74 and 75: Background - Footwear to Reduce Ulc
- Page 76 and 77: period. In addition people without
- Page 78 and 79: Comparisons of in-shoe foot pressur
- Page 80 and 81: The rate of plantar callus formatio
- Page 82 and 83: Evidence Table: Section 10AuthorFoo
- Page 84 and 85: Background - Foot Clinics and Multi
- Page 86 and 87: A prospective non randomised contro
- Page 88 and 89: Summary - Foot Clinics and Multi-di
- Page 90 and 91: Section 12: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
- Page 92 and 93: and/or osteomyelitis; III - fore-fo
- Page 94 and 95: Summary - Economic consequences•
- Page 96 and 97: Section 13: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
- Page 98 and 99: Some ethnic groups are associated w
- Page 100 and 101: Evidence Table: Section 13AuthorSoc
- Page 102 and 103: Calle-Pascual AL, Duran A, Diaz A,
- Page 104 and 105: Jannink MJ, van Dijk H, de Vries J,
- Page 106 and 107: Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The 14-
- Page 108 and 109: Soulier SM, Godsey C, Asay ED, Perr
Behaviour assessment scores, measured <strong>in</strong> all studies us<strong>in</strong>g newly developed <strong>and</strong> nonvalidated scor<strong>in</strong>g lists, were also reported <strong>in</strong> those 3 RCTs (Barth et al, 1991; Krugeret al, 1992; Ronnemaa et al, 1997). The foot care behaviour <strong>of</strong> patients (e.g. wash<strong>in</strong>g,cream<strong>in</strong>g, foot <strong>in</strong>spection, cutt<strong>in</strong>g toe nails, use <strong>of</strong> pumice stone, foot gymnastics)improved significantly at 6 months (Barth et al, 1991; Kruger et al, 1992) <strong>and</strong> oneyear (Ronnemaa et al, 1997).One RCT evaluated the effect <strong>of</strong> foot care education as part <strong>of</strong> general diabeteseducation <strong>in</strong> primary care (Bloomgarten et al, 1987). No significant effect was foundafter a follow up <strong>of</strong> approximately 1.5 years on the behaviour assessment scores (7questions on diabetes self care <strong>of</strong> which 1 asked how <strong>of</strong>ten the feet were checked forsores). Callus, nail dystrophy <strong>and</strong> fungal <strong>in</strong>fections were not different between<strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>and</strong> control groups after 1.5 years.One RCT evaluated the effect <strong>of</strong> a complex <strong>in</strong>tervention that <strong>in</strong>cluded patienteducation on foot care, <strong>in</strong> a primary care sett<strong>in</strong>g (Litzelman et al, 1993). This<strong>in</strong>tervention was targeted at both patients <strong>and</strong> doctors. A significant positive effectwas found on patients' foot care behaviour.Two RCTs evaluated the effect <strong>of</strong> patient education, tailored to the educational needs<strong>of</strong> the patients (Mazzuca et al, 1986; Rettig et al, 1986). One was performed <strong>in</strong>primary care (Mazzuca et al, 1986), the other study <strong>in</strong> the home environment (Rettiget al, 1986). In the first, foot care knowledge only was assessed at 1 year, <strong>and</strong> noeffect was found (Mazzuca et al, 1986). In the second, there was a statisticallysignificant improvement <strong>in</strong> foot care knowledge at 6 months follow up (Rettig et al,1986). However, no positive effects were found on foot appearance <strong>and</strong> foot careskills score.Mason et al (1999) reviewed 5 r<strong>and</strong>omised footcare educational studies which<strong>in</strong>cluded people with <strong>Type</strong> 2 diabetes. They reached the conclusion that s<strong>in</strong>ce therewere no consistent patterns <strong>in</strong> study methods or f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs that it was necessary to<strong>in</strong>terpret the results <strong>of</strong> each study <strong>in</strong>dividually. Therefore studies which haveaddressesd this question are described <strong>in</strong> more detail below.Rettig et al (1986) evaluated the effects <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>dividualised diabetes self-care homeeducation programme. Of 471 people with <strong>Type</strong> 2 diabetes enrolled, 228 wereassigned to the home education group <strong>and</strong> 243 to the control group. After 6 monthsfootcare knowledge score was significantly higher among the <strong>in</strong>tervention subjectscompared with the control subjects (62.2±1.7 v 53.1±1.8, p=0.001), but there were nodifferences <strong>in</strong> footcare skill score (71.8±2.0 v 68.9±1.8, p=NS) or foot appearancescore (70.2±0.7 v 68.8±0.7, p=NS). At 12 months there were no differences <strong>in</strong>diabetes-related hospitalisations between the2 groups.Bloomgarden et al (1987) evaluated a diabetes cl<strong>in</strong>ic education (general <strong>and</strong> footcare)programme <strong>in</strong> 266 people with <strong>in</strong>sul<strong>in</strong> treated diabetes (127 <strong>in</strong> the education group<strong>and</strong> 139 <strong>in</strong> the control group). There were no significant differences between groups<strong>in</strong> type or duration <strong>of</strong> diabetes, <strong>in</strong>sul<strong>in</strong> dosage, <strong>and</strong> educational background.Knowledge score (which did not <strong>in</strong>clude any question related to feet) <strong>in</strong>creased <strong>in</strong> theeducation group (5.3±1.6 to 5.8±1.6) but did not change <strong>in</strong> the control group (5.3±1.7)60