Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32390305›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2020

Facilitators and barriers of using digital technology for the management of diabetic foot ulcers: A qualitative systematic review.

Hui Foh Foong, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Zee Upton, Lorainne Tudor Car

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Infection and immunity · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Hui Foh FoongCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-4212
Bhone Myint KyawCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore.
Zee UptonSkin Research Institute of Singapore, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore.
Lorainne Tudor CarFamily Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore.
Nanyang Technological University · SGAgency for Science, Technology and Research · SG

Funding

Skin Research Institute of Singapore (SRIS) H19/01/a0/0KK9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of digital technology has been shown to be effective in managing chronic conditions. Telemedicine and mobile application are two common applications of digital technology in managing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). The facilitators and barriers of using it for DFU management are yet to be explored. This is a qualitative systematic review. Five bibliography databases and grey literature sources were searched (2000-2019). Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted the data, assessed the quality of the included studies, and performed thematic synthesis. Three studies on patients and five studies on healthcare practitioners (HCPs) were included. Two studies focused on the use of mobile applications and six on telemedicine. In studies on patients, four analytical themes were generated: the relationships with HCPs; the attitude towards the usage of digital technology; the role of wound image taking; and impact of digital technology on DFU care, encompassing 15 facilitators (eg, enabling community support, improving wound care knowledge) and 12 barriers (eg, lack of technological savviness, difficulty reading on smartphones). Three analytical themes were generated from studies on HCPs: the impact of digital technology on HCPs; the role of digital technology in DFU care; and organisation of DFU care delivery, encompassing 17 facilitators (eg, adequate wound care training, digital technology enables holistic care) and 16 barriers (eg, lack of multidisciplinary approach in caring for DFU, lack of direct contact in care provision). Patients and HCPs reported various barriers and facilitators relating to different aspects of using digital technology in DFU management. Our findings can help inform future research as well as the adoption of digital technology in DFU management.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootTelemedicineChronic DiseaseDigital TechnologyHumansTechnologydiabetic foot ulcerdigital technologymobile healthqualitativetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32390305
PMCPMC7948580
OpenAlexW3023085770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.