-
Australian Journal of General Practice May 2020Diabetic foot ulcers are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and can subsequently lead to hospitalisation and lower limb amputation if not recognised and...
BACKGROUND
Diabetic foot ulcers are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and can subsequently lead to hospitalisation and lower limb amputation if not recognised and treated in a timely manner.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this article is to review the current evidence for preventing and managing diabetic foot ulcers, with the aim to increase clinicians' confidence in assessing and treating these complex medical presentations.
DISCUSSION
All patients with diabetes should have an annual foot review by a general practitioner or podiatrist. A three-monthly foot review is recommended for any patient with a history of a diabetic foot infection. Assessment involves identification of risk factors including peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease, and examination of ulceration if present. It is essential to identify patients with diabetes who are 'at risk' of ulceration, assess for any early signs of skin breakdown, initiate appropriate management to prevent progression and refer the patient if indicated.
Topics: Diabetic Foot; Humans; Physical Examination; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32416652
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-11-19-5161 -
Australian Journal of General Practice May 2020Flat foot (pes planus) describes a reduction or absence of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot, with or without additional deformities of the foot and ankle....
BACKGROUND
Flat foot (pes planus) describes a reduction or absence of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot, with or without additional deformities of the foot and ankle. Flat feet are relatively common in childhood, affecting up to 14% of children. Flexible flat feet can be part of a normal developmental profile, and foot arches usually develop with age, although there is a wide range of normal variation. Up to 25% of the total population has a deficient MLA in at least one foot; therefore, it is likely a general practitioner (GP) will encounter this issue relatively frequently in their practice.
OBJECTIVE
This article outlines a method for paediatric pes planus assessment and management. A multidisciplinary approach involving GPs, rehabilitation physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, orthotists and podiatrists is discussed.
DISCUSSION
Paediatric pes planus treatment has long been a contentious topic, with a lack of clarity in the literature regarding which children require treatment and the efficacy of intervention. However, there is increasing evidence that non-surgical interventions, such as orthoses and physiotherapy, may be beneficial for certain groups of children.
Topics: Disease Management; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pediatrics; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 32416653
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-09-19-5089 -
Foot Self-Care Experiences Among Patients With Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Wound Management & Prevention Apr 2020Research that explores foot self-care practices and clinical foot care recommendations for persons with diabetes mellitus is limited.
UNLABELLED
Research that explores foot self-care practices and clinical foot care recommendations for persons with diabetes mellitus is limited.
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review was to understand the gaps between the American Diabetes Association clinical recommendations on preventive foot self-care and perceptions of and actions taken by patients with diabetes and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).
METHODS
PubMed, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Online Library, Psychological Information Database, and Google Scholar were systematically searched for qualitative research literature published in English from January 1, 2001, to October 21, 2016, using the MeSH terms diabetes mellitus, diabetic foot ulcers, foot care, experiences, and perception to examine the experiences of patients with diabetes regarding foot self-care practices. Publications were screened for inclusion according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and The Standard for Reporting Qualitative Research was used to appraise trustworthiness and publication bias. Publication details (author, year, title, country in which the study was conducted, and the type of publication), study aims, design (study methodology, method of sampling, and analysis method), and participant details were abstracted to Excel sheets for analysis of foot self-care experiences and to determine common themes (foot self-care issues) among patients with diabetes.
RESULTS
Of the 14 publications identified, 9 (that included 113 patients with diabetes [95 with or history of DFUs and 18 with no DFUs] and 28 health care professionals [14 podiatrists, 8 physicians, and 6 registered nurses]) met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Research included 4 qualitative descriptive design studies, 2 descriptive phenomenology studies, 1 grounded theory study, 1 interpretive phenomenology study, and 1 exploratory qualitative design study. Four (4) studies were found to lack transparency, and 7 studies did not address trustworthiness. The common themes identified were the high clinical and lifestyle burden of DFUs, poor foot self-care knowledge, perception barriers and resistance, adoption of self-management practices, and discordance between patient and provider impressions and expectations.
CONCLUSION
Several barriers to optimal foot care in persons with diabetes with and without foot ulcers were identified and may be explained and addressed by considering the Health Belief Model. Clinical interventions should be individualized to identify and address patient-specific barriers to optimal foot self-care. Future clinical studies are needed to examine the outcomes of individualized interventions.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Self Care
PubMed: 32294056
DOI: 10.25270/wmp.2020.4.1625 -
Journal of Wound Care Mar 2020
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Biofilms; Debridement; Detergents; Early Medical Intervention; Humans; Pain Management; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Skin; Surface-Active Agents; Treatment Failure; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 32160083
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup3b.S1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that people of all ages take regular and adequate physical activity. If unable to meet the recommendations due to health...
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that people of all ages take regular and adequate physical activity. If unable to meet the recommendations due to health conditions, international guidance advises being as physically active as possible. Evidence from community interventions of physical activity indicate that people living with medical conditions are sometimes excluded from participation in studies. In this review, we considered the effects of activity-promoting interventions on physical activity and well-being in studies, as well as any adverse events experienced by participants living with inherited or acquired neuromuscular diseases (NMDs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to promote physical activity in people with NMD compared with no intervention or alternative interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
On 30 April 2020, we searched Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.Gov. WHO ICTRP was not accessible at the time.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised or quasi-randomised trials, including cross-over trials, of interventions designed to promote physical activity in people with NMD compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. We specifically included studies that reported physical activity as an outcome measure. Our main focus was studies in which promoting physical activity was a stated aim but we also included studies in which physical activity was assessed as a secondary or exploratory outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 13 studies (795 randomised participants from 12 studies; number of participants unclear in one study) of different interventions to promote physical activity. Most studies randomised a minority of invited participants. No study involved children or adolescents and nine studies reported minimal entry criteria for walking. Participants had one of nine inherited or acquired NMDs. Types of intervention included structured physical activity support, exercise support (as a specific form of physical activity), and behaviour change support that included physical activity or exercise. Only one included study clearly reported that the aim of intervention was to increase physical activity. Other studies reported or planned to analyse the effects of intervention on physical activity as a secondary or exploratory outcome measure. Six studies did not report results for physical activity outcomes, or the data were not usable. We judged 10 of the 13 included studies at high or unclear risk of bias from incomplete physical activity outcome reporting. We did not perform a meta-analysis for any comparison because of differences in interventions and in usual care. We also found considerable variation in how studies reported physical activity as an outcome measure. The studies that reported physical activity measurement did not always clearly report intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis or whether final assessments occurred during or after intervention. Based on prespecified measures, we included three comparisons in our summary of findings. A physical activity programme (weight-bearing) compared to no physical activity programme One study involved adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and reported weekly duration of walking during and at the end of a one-year intervention using a StepWatch ankle accelerometer. Based on the point estimate and low-certainty evidence, intervention may have led to an important increase in physical activity per week; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) included the possibility of no difference or an effect in either direction at three months (mean difference (MD) 34 minutes per week, 95% CI -92.19 to 160.19; 69 participants), six months (MD 68 minutes per week, 95% CI -55.35 to 191.35; 74 participants), and 12 months (MD 49 minutes per week, 95% CI -75.73 to 173.73; 70 participants). Study-reported effect estimates for foot lesions and full-thickness ulcers also included the possibility of no difference, a higher, or lower risk with intervention. A sensor-based, interactive exercise programme compared to no sensor-based, interactive exercise programme One study involved adults with DPN and reported duration of walking over 48 hours at the end of four weeks' intervention using a t-shirt embedded PAMSys sensor. It was not possible to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the intervention from the very low-certainty evidence (MD -0.64 hours per 48 hours, 95% CI -2.42 to 1.13; 25 participants). We were also unable to draw conclusions about impact on the Physical Component Score (PCS) for quality of life (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -5.98 to 6.46; 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although intervention may have made little or no difference to the Mental Component Score (MCS) for quality of life (MD 5.10 points, 95% CI -0.58 to 10.78; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). A functional exercise programme compared to a stretching exercise programme One study involved adults with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy and reported a daily physical activity count at the end of 12 weeks' intervention using an Actical accelerometer. It was not possible to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of either intervention (requiring compliance) due to low-certainty evidence and unconfirmed measurement units (MD -8701, 95% CI -38,293.30 to 20,891.30; 43 participants). Functional exercise may have made little or no difference to quality of life compared to stretching (PCS: MD -1.10 points, 95% CI -5.22 to 3.02; MCS: MD -1.10 points, 95% CI -6.79 to 4.59; 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). Although studies reported adverse events incompletely, we found no evidence of supported activity increasing the risk of serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of evidence relating to children, adolescents, and non-ambulant people of any age. Many people living with NMD did not meet randomised controlled trial eligibility criteria. There was variation in the components of supported activity intervention and usual care, such as physical therapy provision. We identified variation among studies in how physical activity was monitored, analysed, and reported. We remain uncertain of the effectiveness of promotional intervention for physical activity and its impact on quality of life and adverse events. More information is needed on the ITT population, as well as more complete reporting of outcomes. While there may be no single objective measure of physical activity, the study of qualitative and dichotomous change in self-reported overall physical activity might offer a pragmatic approach to capturing important change at an individual and population level.
Topics: Bias; Exercise; Health Promotion; Humans; Muscle Stretching Exercises; Neuromuscular Diseases; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training; Time Factors; Walking
PubMed: 34027632
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013544.pub2