Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29854004›Full record

Observational studyJournal of foot and ankle research2018

Independent factors associated with wearing different types of outdoor footwear in a representative inpatient population: a cross-sectional study.

Alex L Barwick, Jaap J van Netten, Lloyd F Reed, Peter A Lazzarini

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Understanding Footwear Needs: A Conceptual Review.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Special theme article: science and sociology of footwear.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2018
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alex L Barwick1School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Southern Cross Drive, Bilinga, QLD 4225 Australia.
Jaap J van Netten2School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD Australia.
Lloyd F Reed2School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD Australia.
Peter A Lazzarini2School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AUSouthern Cross University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFootwear can have both a positive and negative impact on lower limb health and mobility across the lifespan, influencing the risk of foot pain, ulceration, and falls in those at risk. Choice of footwear can be influenced by disease as well as sociocultural factors, yet few studies have investigated the types of footwear people wear and the profiles of those who wear them. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with outdoor footwear type worn most often in a representative inpatient population.

methodsThis study was a secondary data analysis of a cohort of 733 inpatients that is highly representative of developed nations' hospitalised populations; 62 ± 19 years, 55.8% male, and 23.5% diabetes. Socio-demographic, medical history, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy, foot deformity, foot ulcer history, amputation history and past foot treatment variables were collected. Participants selected the footwear type they mostly wore outside the house in the previous year from 16 types of footwear. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent factors associated with outdoor footwear types selected.

resultsThe most common outdoor footwear types were: running shoes (20%), thongs/flip flops (14%), walking shoes (14%), sandals (13%) and boots (11%). Several socio-demographic, medical history and foot-related factors were independently associated (Odds Ratio; 95% Confidence Interval)) with different types of footwear. Running shoes were associated with male sex (2.7; 1.8-4.1); thongs with younger age (0.95 for each year; 0.94-0.97), being female (2.0; 1.2-3.1) and socio-economic status (3.1; 1.2-7.6); walking shoes with arthritis (1.9; 1.2-3.0); sandals with female sex (3.8; 2.3-6.2); boots with male sex (9.7; 4.3-21.6) and inner regional (2.6; 1.3-5.1) and remote (3.4; 1.2-9.5) residence (all,

conclusionsWe profiled the types of outdoor footwear worn most in a large diverse inpatient population and the factors associated with wearing them. Sex was the most consistent factor associated with outdoor footwear type. Females were more likely to wear thongs and sandals and males boots and running shoes. Overall, this data gives insights into the socio-demographic, medical and other health factors that are related to footwear choice in a large diverse population primarily of older age.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorAgedAged, 80 and overArthritisCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetic FootFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedQueenslandRisk FactorsSex FactorsShoesSocial ClassArthritisDiabetesFlip flopsFootwearInpatientNeuropathyRunning shoesSandalsSexWalking shoes

Identifiers

PMID29854004
PMCPMC5975543
OpenAlexW2806250238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.