Trial reportBMC health services research2024
How do patients and healthcare professionals experience foot examinations in diabetes care? - A randomised controlled study of digital foot examinations versus traditional foot examinations.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03088566 (Implementation of the D-Foot at the Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Implementation of the D-Foot at the Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Health Technologies for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence, Access Inequities, and Public Health Integration.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- User-Centered Development of a Digital Health Service for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Risk Stratification: Usability Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- Data in Diabetic Foot Care: From Current State to a Management Framework for Implementation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Can a Low-Budget Questionnaire Support Improved Health Service Accessibility and Sustainability: Results from an Exploratory Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital solutions in healthcare can facilitate and improve care. However, the experiences and the usefulness of using either digital foot examinations or traditional foot examinations need to be evaluated. The aims of the study were to evaluate: 1) The differences in patient experiences, having their foot examined supported by the Clinical Decision Support System as compared with having their foot examined in traditional practice, 2) How healthcare professionals, by using the digital tool, experienced the routine compared with performing the foot examination as in traditional practice.
methodsOf a total of 141 patients, 100 patients with diabetes were single-blind digitally randomised to one of two parallel arms: having their foot examined by a healthcare professional using a digital tool (n = 47) or having their foot examined as in traditional practice (n = 53) at the Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Patients filled in a modified version of the National Patient Survey and the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey at study end. Two healthcare professionals, working at a Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, answered surveys regarding the interaction between the patient and the certified prosthetist and orthotist.
resultsPatients, aged 66 ± 13 years, perceived a high level of satisfaction with the service at the department, regardless of the method used. No significant differences between groups were found when evaluated by 27 questions in the National Patient Survey or by the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey, with scores of 67.17 ± 12.18 vs. 66.35 ± 16.52 (p = 0.78) for the intervention and control group respectively. For the same patient that healthcare professionals foot examined, the risk class was fully obtained when the risk to develop foot ulcers was assessed by using the digital tool, whereas only 2% of the patients were classified when foot assessed in traditional practice.
conclusionsRegardless of the method used for the foot examination, patients perceived a high level of satisfaction with the services at the Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics. All the patients were risk classified in the intervention group. The healthcare professionals found that, by using the Clinical Decision Support System, the foot examination was structured and followed clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the documentation in the electronic health record was thorough, even though further improvements, such as integration with co-existing health record systems, were requested.
trial registrationClinical Trials NCT03088566 , Registered 23 March 2017.
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.