ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2025
Knowledge-Behavior Relationships and Technology Adoption Among Patients With Diabetes: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Smart Foot Care Technology.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-medication among university students in Guangdong province, China: a cross-sectional study using the KAP model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals' intention to adopt a smart diabetic foot screening system: A UTAUT-informed mixed-methods study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough recent systematic reviews indicate low adherence to foot care practices among patients with type 2 diabetes compared to other self-management behaviors, smart healthcare technologies offer potential solutions for improving foot care management. The smart diabetic foot screening system represents an innovative approach to diabetic foot care. However, the factors influencing its adoption, particularly the relationship between knowledge, behavior, and technology acceptance, remain poorly understood.
methodsA mixed-methods design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were collected from 80 patients with type 2 diabetes using validated instruments: the foot care knowledge questionnaire, diabetic foot self-management behavior scale, and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology questionnaire. Pearson correlation and regression analyses examined relationships between knowledge, behavior, and technology adoption intention. In-depth, semistructured interviews with 20 participants explored adoption factors. Thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data.
resultsDespite high levels of foot care knowledge (86.2% correct response rate), actual self-management behaviors remained suboptimal, with a modest correlation between knowledge and behavior (r = 0.31 and p < 0.01). Regression analysis identified attitude and facilitating conditions as significant predictors of smart system adoption intention, explaining 57% of the variance. Qualitative analysis revealed three main themes: technology acceptance perceptions, implementation support system, and self-management patterns, highlighting the complex interplay between knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral factors.
conclusionsThis study reveals that despite improved knowledge levels compared to previous decades, the knowledge-behavior gap in diabetic foot care persists. The findings suggest that successful implementations of smart healthcare technologies require addressing both attitudinal factors and facilitating conditions, rather than focusing solely on knowledge enhancement. These insights contribute to understanding technology adoption in chronic disease self-management and inform the development of more effective implementation strategies.
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.