Dataset Information

Associations of health literacy with risk factors for diabetic foot disease: a cross-sectional analysis of the Southern Tasmanian Health Literacy and Foot Ulcer Development in Diabetes Mellitus Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Poor health literacy (HL) is associated with poorer health outcomes in diabetes but little is known about its effects on foot disease. This study was aimed to determine the associations between HL and diabetic foot disease.

Design

This is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective study of foot disease.

Setting

Attendees of the Royal Hobart Hospital's Diabetes outpatient clinics.

Participants

222 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes aged >40 years and without a history of foot disease, psychotic disorders or dementia.

Measures

Outcomes were peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease and foot deformity according to published guidelines. The exposure, HL, was measured using the short form Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Covariates included demographic characteristics, medical history, psychological measures and foot care behaviour.

Results

Of 222 participants, 204 had adequate HL. (Mean (SD) S-TOFHLA scores were 31.9 (6.7)), mean(SD) HLQ scores were 134.4 (18.4)). In univariable but not multivariable analyses, higher S-TOFHLA scores were associated with lower overall risk for foot disease (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99) and loss of protective sensation (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.995).

Conclusions

These data provide little support for clinically important impacts of HL on risk factors for diabetic foot disease. However, in the absence of longitudinal data, such effects cannot be ruled out. Longitudinal studies measuring incident foot disease are needed to properly judge the potential for interventions improving HL to reduce the incidence of diabetic foot disease.

SUBMITTER: Chen P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6677956 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and elucidate the association between DR and DFU severities and their shared risk factors.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted on DFU patients who underwent ophthalmic and vascular examinations within 6 months; 100 type 2 diabetic patients with DFU were included. The medical records of 2496 type 2 diabetic patients without DFU served as control data. DR prevalence and severity were assessed in DFU patients. DFU patients were compared with the control group regarding each clinical variable. Additionally, DFU patients were divided into two groups according to DR severity and compared.ResultsOut of 100 DFU patients, 90 patients (90%) had DR and 55 (55%) had proliferative DR (PDR). There was no significant association between DR and DFU severities (R = 0.034, p = 0.734). A multivariable analysis comparing type 2 diabetic patients with and without DFUs showed that the presence of DR [OR, 226.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 58.07-880.49; p < 0.001] and proliferative DR [OR, 306.27; 95% CI, 64.35-1457.80; p < 0.001), higher HbA1c (%, OR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.46-2.67; p < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (mg/dL, OR, 1.62, 95% CI, 1.06-2.50; p = 0.027), older age (years, OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17; p < 0.001), higher pulse pressure (mmHg, OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; p = 0.025), lower cholesterol (mg/dL, OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97; p < 0.001), lower BMI (kg/m2, OR, 0.87, 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.044) and lower hematocrit (%, OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87; p < 0.001) were associated with DFUs. In a subgroup analysis of DFU patients, the PDR group had a longer duration of diabetes mellitus, higher serum BUN, and higher serum creatinine than the non-PDR group. In the multivariable analysis, only higher serum creatinine was associated with PDR in DFU patients (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.78; p = 0.021).ConclusionsDiabetic retinopathy is prevalent in patients with DFU and about half of DFU patients had PDR. No significant association was found in terms of the severity of these two diabetic complications. To prevent blindness, patients with DFU, and especially those with high serum creatinine, should undergo retinal examinations for timely PDR diagnosis and management.

Project description:IntroductionAccurate identification of pathogens, rather than colonising bacteria, is a prerequisite for targeted antibiotic therapy to ensure optimal patient outcome in wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers. Wound swabs are the easiest and most commonly used sampling technique but most published guidelines recommend instead removal of a tissue sample from the wound bed, which is a more complex process. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples in patients with suspected diabetic foot infection.Methods and analysisPatients with a diabetic foot ulcer that is thought to be infected are being recruited from 25 sites across England in a cross-sectional study. The coprimary endpoints for the study are agreement between the two sampling techniques for three microbiological parameters: reported presence of likely isolates identified by the UK Health Protection Agency; resistance of isolates to usual antibiotic agents; and, the number of isolates reported per specimen. Secondary endpoints include appropriateness of the empiric antibiotic therapy prescribed and adverse events. Enrolling 400 patients will provide 80% power to detect a difference of 3% in the reported presence of an organism, assuming organism prevalence of 10%, discordance of 5% and a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance. Assumed overall prevalence is based on relatively uncommon organisms such as Pseudomonas. We will define acceptable agreement as ?>0.6.Ethics and disseminationConcordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection (CODIFI) will produce robust data to evaluate the two most commonly used sampling techniques employed for patients with a diabetic foot infection. This will help determine whether or not it is important that clinicians take tissue samples rather than swabs in infected ulcers. This study has been approved by the Sheffield NRES Committee (Ref: 11/YH/0078) and all sites have obtained local approvals prior starting recruitment.Study registrationNRES Ref: 11/YH/0078, UKCRN ID: 10440, ISRCTN: 52608451.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). DESIGN:Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING:Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England. PARTICIPANTS:Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ?18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU. EXCLUSION CRITERIA:clinically inappropriate to take either sample. INTERVENTIONS:Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel. OUTCOME MEASURES:Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs. RESULTS:400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95%?CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION:Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN52608451.