ArticleBMC research notes2020
Evaluation of the development process and effects of a foot care program with educational tools for nurses and care workers as in-home service providers.
Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNurses and care workers who provide in-home services play important roles in assessing and providing care for older people who lack foot self-care abilities. We aimed to evaluate the development process and effects of a foot care program with educational tools for nurses and care workers as in-home service providers. This is a process evaluation with a descriptive mixed-methods study of quantitative and qualitative data conducted from July to October 2019 in Japan.
resultsFoot care education tools were developed to address the issues faced by participants with various work patterns and insufficient foot care education in Japan. The contents of these tools were discussed by a panel and reviewed by experts. Three outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlation. Changes in foot care practice scores were significantly correlated with performance scores. The evaluations of five of the eight field nurses suggested that excess information was included in the foot care booklet. Overall, 29 nurses and care workers showed higher than average evaluation scores [3.8-4.1 (standard deviation, 0.62-0.91)] for the motion pictures and PowerPoint presentation. A program according to this conceptual framework must be established and periodically evaluated for refinement. Trial Registration The trial registration number for the University Hospital Medical Information Network is UMIN000036307. Registration Date-2019/07/25.
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.