ArticleBMC nursing2026
Nurses' knowledge and attitudes toward diabetic foot care: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic foot complications are among the most serious consequences of diabetes and are associated with infection, amputation, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. Nurses play a key role in risk assessment, patient education, wound care, and continuity of care. This study aimed to evaluate nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward diabetic foot care.
methodsThis descriptive, cross-sectional, two-centre study was conducted between November 2021 and June 2022 with 146 nurses working in diabetic foot–related clinics in two tertiary hospitals in Izmir, Türkiye. Data were collected using the Nurse Information Form, the Attitude Scale Towards Diabetic Foot Care (ASDFC), and the Diabetic Foot Knowledge Form. In the current sample, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.89 for the ASDFC and 0.77 for the knowledge form. Although the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated deviations from normality, parametric tests were used given the robustness of these methods in moderately sized samples and the approximately symmetric distribution of the data. Items with communalities below 0.30 and factor loadings below 0.40 were considered for removal.
resultsNo statistically significant relationship was found between nurses’ demographic characteristics and knowledge-level categories (all p > .05). Most nurses (57.5%) had a moderate level of knowledge. The overall mean ASDFC score was 20.86 ± 7.39. Attitude scores differed significantly by age (F = 5.767, p=.004), hospital (t =-1.976, p = .050), nursing experience (F = 7.546, p = .001), and diabetic foot care experience (F = 6.149, p = .003). Nurses aged 31–40 years and those with 6–10 years of experience had higher mean attitude scores than their comparison groups.
conclusionsNurses’ knowledge levels were mostly moderate, whereas attitudes towards diabetic foot care varied according to age, professional experience, and institutional context. These findings support the need for structured, evidence-based in-service education and continuous professional development in diabetic foot care. Strengthening nurses’ knowledge and attitudes may contribute to better preventive care, patient self-care support, and improved clinical outcomes.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.