↓ Skip to main content

Improving rural and remote practitioners’ knowledge of the diabetic foot: findings from an educational intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Improving rural and remote practitioners’ knowledge of the diabetic foot: findings from an educational intervention
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13047-016-0157-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah E. Schoen, Kaniz Gausia, David G. Glance, Sandra C. Thompson

Abstract

This study aimed to determine knowledge of national guidelines for diabetic foot assessment and risk stratification by rural and remote healthcare professionals in Western Australia and their implementation in practice. Assessment of diabetic foot knowledge, availability of equipment and delivery of foot care education in a primary healthcare setting at baseline enabled evaluation of the effectiveness of a diabetic foot education and training program for generalist healthcare professionals. This study employed a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test study design. Healthcare practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and practice of diabetic foot assessment, diabetic foot risks, risk stratification, and use of the 2011 National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines were investigated with an electronic pre-test survey(.) Healthcare professionals then undertook a 3-h education and training workshop before completing the electronic post-test knowledge, attitudes and practice survey. Comparison of pre-test/post-test survey findings was used to assess the change in knowledge, attitudes and intended practice due to the workshops. Two hundred and forty-six healthcare professionals from two rural and remote health regions of Western Australia participated in training workshops. Monofilaments and diabetes foot care education brochures, particularly brochures for Aboriginal people, were reported as not readily available in rural and remote health services. For most participants (58 %), their post-test knowledge score increased significantly from the pre-test score. Use of the Guidelines in clinical settings was low (19 %). The healthcare professionals' baseline diabetic foot knowledge was adequate to correctly identify the high risk category. However, stratification of the intermediate risk category was poor, even after training. This study reports the first assessment of Western Australia's rural and remote health professionals' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the diabetic foot. It shows that without training, generalists' levels of knowledge concerning the diabetic foot was low and they were unlikely to assess foot risk. The findings from this study in a rural and remote setting cast doubt on the ability of generalist healthcare professionals to stratify risk appropriately, especially for those at intermediate risk, without clinical decision support tools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Unspecified 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 11 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 45%
Unspecified 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,344,943
of 8,219,010 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#241
of 396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,303
of 258,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,219,010 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 58th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.