People with diabetes do not learn and recall their diabetes foot education: a cohort study
Diabetes education for those patients at risk of diabetes complications remains a mainstay of diabetes treatment. This study aimed primarily to determine the retention of foot health information 6 months post delivery of education. The secondary aim was to determine the type and delivery method of diabetes-specific foot health information during a podiatry consultation.
This study was a prospective cohort study with two groups: patients with diabetes and their treating podiatrist. Baseline data collection included educational topics and delivery methods discussed during the consultation. The Problem Areas in Diabetes Questionnaire (PAID) and perceived key educational message were collected from each group's perspective at baseline and 6 months afterwards.
Three podiatrists and 24 participants with diabetes provided information at the two time points. At baseline, the key messages of 14 (58%) patient participant responses differed from their podiatrists and 15 (63%) differed 6 months later. Education covered up to seven separate topics, including neurological impact of diabetes, vascular supply and general foot care. The majority of consultations (n = 23, 96%) covered three or more topics.
Education is vital to effective treatment of people with diabetes. Current common approaches used in individual consultations such as verbal explanations appear ineffective in aiding the learning and retention of podiatry-specific diabetes education. This study highlights the need for research investigating more effective methods to deliver key education to this population to aid retention and therefore assist behaviour change.
KeywordsPodiatry Diabetes education Foot education Education retention
Blood sugar level
Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Problem areas in diabetes questionnaire
JY is support through an Australian Government Research Training Program. CW is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Health Professional Fellowship. This research did not recieve any additional funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This research was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of Peninsula Health (LRR/14/PH/14).
- 1.International Diabetes Federation. International Diabetes Federation 7th Atlas. 2015; http://www.diabetesatlas.org/. Accessed 1st September 2017.
- 2.Baker IDI. National Evidence-Based Guideline on Prevention, Identification and Management of Foot Complications in Diabetes (Part of the Guidelines on Management of Type 2 Diabetes). In: Baker IDI, ed. Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011.Google Scholar
- 3.Shaw J, Tanamas S. Diabetes: The silent pandemic and its impact on Australia. Australia: Baker IDI Heartand Diabetes Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
- 4.J.A.N. Dorresteijn, D.M.W. Kriegsman, W.J.J. Assendelft, G.D. Valk, Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 12, CD001488–CD001488 (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.CB How, V Rimke, H Monique, M Maria-Inti, SR JPM, et al. Psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 9, CD011469 (2015).Google Scholar
- 6.M Attridge, J Creamer, M Ramsden, R Cannings-John, K Hawthorne, Culturally appropriate health education for people in ethnic minority groups with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 9, CD006424 (2014).Google Scholar
- 7.Practitioners TRACoG. General practice management of type 2 diabetes: 2016–18. 2016; https://static.diabetesaustralia.com.au/s/fileassets/diabetes-australia/5d3298b2-abf3-487e-9d5e-0558566fc242.pdf. Accessed 1st March, 2018.
- 8.Victorian Government Department of Health. Community Health Priority Tools. In: Department of Health, ed. Victoria, Australia: Victorian Government Department of Health; 2009.Google Scholar
- 10.Snoek FW, G. Problem Area in Diabetes (PAID). Adapted from DAWN Interactive 2. 2006; www.dawnstudy.com. Accessed 1st September 2017.
- 11.Stata 13 [computer program]. 1985-2016 Texas, United States of America: StataCorp.Google Scholar
- 12.Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications To Practice. United States of America: F.A. Davis Company/Publishers.Google Scholar
- 15.E. Loveman, G.K. Frampton, A.J. Clegg, The clinical effectiveness of diabetes education models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Health Technol. Assess. 12, 1–136 (2008)Google Scholar
- 18.J. Speight, E. Holmes-Truscott, D.M. Harvey, C. Hendrieckx, V.L. Hagger et al.Structured type 1 diabetes education delivered in routine care in Australia reduces diabetes-related emergencies and severe diabetes-related distress: The OzDAFNE program. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 112, 65–72 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.L.F. Fan, S. Sidani, A. Cooper-Brathwaite, K. Metcalfe, Feasibility, acceptability and effects of a foot self-care educational intervention on minor foot problems in adult patients with diabetes at low risk for foot ulceration: a pilot study. Can. J. Diabetes 37, 195–201 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar