ArticleEndocrine2018
People with diabetes do not learn and recall their diabetes foot education: a cohort study.
Article in Endocrine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Central Role of Learning in Preventing Foot Complications in Persons With Diabetes: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Article
- Healthcare workers' perspectives on diabetic foot complications among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Fiji.PloS one · 2024Article
- 12. Retinopathy, Neuropathy, and Foot Care: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes care · 2024Review
- 12. Retinopathy, Neuropathy, and Foot Care: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Recurrence rates suggest delayed identification of plantar ulceration for patients in diabetic foot remission.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDiabetes education for those patients at risk of diabetes complications remains a mainstay of diabetes treatment. This study aimed primarily to determine the retention of foot health information 6 months post delivery of education. The secondary aim was to determine the type and delivery method of diabetes-specific foot health information during a podiatry consultation.
methodsThis study was a prospective cohort study with two groups: patients with diabetes and their treating podiatrist. Baseline data collection included educational topics and delivery methods discussed during the consultation. The Problem Areas in Diabetes Questionnaire (PAID) and perceived key educational message were collected from each group's perspective at baseline and 6 months afterwards.
resultsThree podiatrists and 24 participants with diabetes provided information at the two time points. At baseline, the key messages of 14 (58%) patient participant responses differed from their podiatrists and 15 (63%) differed 6 months later. Education covered up to seven separate topics, including neurological impact of diabetes, vascular supply and general foot care. The majority of consultations (n = 23, 96%) covered three or more topics.
conclusionsEducation is vital to effective treatment of people with diabetes. Current common approaches used in individual consultations such as verbal explanations appear ineffective in aiding the learning and retention of podiatry-specific diabetes education. This study highlights the need for research investigating more effective methods to deliver key education to this population to aid retention and therefore assist behaviour change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.