Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29159107›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical & translational endocrinology2015

The relationship between self-efficacy and diabetic foot self-care.

Stacey Wendling, Vera Beadle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Self-efficacy of foot care behaviour of elderly patients with diabetes.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stacey WendlingSaginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay Road University Center, MI 48710, USA.
Vera BeadleSaginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay Road University Center, MI 48710, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsResearch has shown that the ongoing rate of diabetes-related amputations remains significant despite the existence of prevention methods and that amputation in most cases can be prevented. The purpose of the study was to assess the relationship between the level of self-efficacy and performance of foot self-care in those with diabetes as they relate to the prevention of lower extremity amputation (LEA).

methodsA descriptive correlational study was conducted using the theoretical framework of Bandura's social cognitive theory. The Foot Care Confidence Scale (FCCS) and the Nottingham Assessment of Functional Footcare (NAFF) survey instruments were distributed to individuals over 18 years old with diabetes Type 1 and 2 in the lower peninsula of Michigan (

resultsNo significant correlation was identified between the level of self-efficacy and performance of foot self-care behaviors. Statistical significance was found between foot self-care behaviors and gender with males scoring higher than females.

conclusionsThis study adds to the body of knowledge regarding self-efficacy and diabetic foot self-care behaviors. Further research is needed to explore the relationship of gender, diabetes education attendance, and foot self-care behaviors as influencing factors in LEA prevention.

Indexed as

AmputationDiabetesFootNurse practitionerSelf-careSelf-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID29159107
PMCPMC5685009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.