ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2025
Foot Disease Management by General Practitioners in People With and Without Diabetes: An Analysis of Nationally Representative Primary Care Data in Australia.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Foot Disease Management by General Practitioners in People With and Without Diabetes: An Analysis of Nationally Representative Primary Care Data in Australia.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFoot disease is a leading cause of national disease burdens and is driven by diabetes. General practitioners (GPs) play a gatekeeper role in many national healthcare systems. Yet, national foot disease management by GPs has not been explored. We explored the management of foot disease by Australian GPs in people with and without diabetes.
methodsWe analysed 16 years of annual, cross-sectional, GP encounter data from the nationally representative Australian Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health study in which a foot disease problem was managed. Factors independently associated with foot disease encounters by GPs were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsFoot disease management rates increased from 11.6 per 1000 GP encounters (95% CI: 10.8-12.5) in 2000-2001 to 14.4 (13.3-15.4) in 2015-2016 and 6.1 (5.7-6.6) to 8.7 (8.1-9.3) per 100 Australian people. The rate of GP foot disease management was 2.4-fold higher in people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes (31.5 [26.4-36.6] vs. 12.9 [11.8-14.0]). Foot disease encounters were positively associated with diabetes, male patients, older patients, English-speaking backgrounds and having healthcare concession cards (all, p < 0.05); for patients with diabetes, only males were positively associated. Most frequent management actions used were medications, procedures and pathology with referrals, counselling and imaging least frequent.
conclusionsAustralian GP management rates for foot disease are higher than many more well-known health conditions and increasing. GPs frequently manage foot disease with medications and procedures, but relatively rarely counsel or refer. Future strategies to improve GP foot disease management and referrals are needed.
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.