Detecting peripheral neuropathy (PNP) is crucial in preventing complications such as foot ulceration. Clinical examinations for PNP are infrequently provided to patients at high risk due to restrictions on facilities, care providers, or time. A gamified health assessment approach combining wearable sensors holds the potential to address these challenges and provide individuals with instantaneous feedback on their health status.

We aimed to develop and evaluate an application that assesses PNP through video games controlled by pressure sensor-equipped insoles.

In the proof-of-concept exploratory cohort study, a complete game-based framework that allowed the study participant to play 4 video games solely by modulating plantar pressure values was established in an outpatient clinic setting. Foot plantar pressures were measured by the sensor-equipped insole and transferred via Bluetooth to an Android tablet for game control in real time. Game results and sensor data were delivered to the study server for visualization and analysis. Each session lasted about 15 minutes. In total, 299 patients with diabetes mellitus and 30 with metabolic syndrome were tested using the game application. Patients' game performance was initially assessed by hypothesis-driven key capabilities that consisted of reaction time, sensation, skillfulness, balance, endurance, and muscle strength. Subsequently, specific game features were extracted from gaming data sets and compared with nerve conduction study findings, neuropathy symptoms, or disability scores. Multiple machine learning algorithms were applied to 70% (n=122) of acquired data to train predictive models for PNP, while the remaining data were held out for final model evaluation.

Overall, clinically evident PNP was present in 247 of 329 (75.1%) participants, with 88 (26.7%) individuals showing asymmetric nerve deficits. In a subcohort (n=37) undergoing nerve conduction study as the gold standard, sensory and motor nerve conduction velocities and nerve amplitudes in lower extremities significantly correlated with 79 game features (|R|>0.4, highest R value +0.65; P<.001; adjusted R2=0.36). Within another subcohort (n=173) with normal cognition and matched covariates (age, sex, BMI, etc), hypothesis-driven key capabilities and specific game features were significantly correlated with the presence of PNP. Predictive models using selected game features achieved 76.1% (left) and 81.7% (right foot) accuracy for PNP detection. Multiclass models yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 (left foot) and 0.72 (right foot) for assessing nerve damage patterns (small, large, or mixed nerve fiber damage).

The game-based application presents a promising avenue for PNP screening and classification. Evaluation in expanded cohorts may iteratively optimize artificial intelligence model efficacy. The integration of engaging motivational elements and automated data interpretation will support acceptance as a telemedical application.

Introduction Regular diabetic foot checks, at least annually, are important for early identification of risk factors and prevention of ulceration and amputation. To ensure this, most general practices in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) offer free annual diabetes reviews (ADRs) which include a comprehensive foot evaluation. However, attendance rates at these ADRs are low. Aim To explore patients' perspectives on the barriers to attending ADRs and foot checks. Methods Semi-structured interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were overdue their ADR (n  = 13; 7 women, 6 Māori) from two urban practices were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and then analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results We identified three key themes demonstrating barriers to attendance: healthcare-associated factors (suboptimal clinician-patient relationship, not having a consistent general practitioner (GP)); patient-related factors (co-morbid health conditions, issues surrounding identity, and logistical issues); and systemic factors (COVID-19 pandemic, travel distance to the practice, unawareness of available foot care services). Participants' feedback focused on patient-centred approaches for improvements to service delivery, for example using online educational materials, and utilising culturally appropriate models of health including Te Whare Tapa Whā and Whānau Ora approach. Discussion We identified several barriers to attendance, some of which are potentially modifiable. Addressing modifiable barriers and incorporating suggestions made by participants may improve access to the ADR and reduce non-attendance. Further participatory action research could explore these insights in ways that facilitate tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and palpable action.

Diabetic foot is a serious complication of diabetes with a high disability and mortality rate, which can be prevented by early screening. General practitioners play an essential role in diabetic foot risk screening, yet the screening behaviors of general practitioners have rarely been studied in primary care settings. This study aimed to investigate foot risk screening behaviors and analyze their influencing factors among general practitioners.

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 844 general practitioners from 78 community health centers in Changsha, China. A self-designed and validated questionnaire was used to assess the general practitioner's cognition, attitude, and behaviors on performing diabetic foot risk screening. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to investigate the influencing factors of risk screening behaviors.

The average score of diabetic foot risk screening behaviors among the general practitioners was 61.53 ± 14.69, and 271 (32.1%) always or frequently performed foot risk screening for diabetic patients. Higher training frequency (β = 3.197, p < 0.001), higher screening cognition (β = 2.947, p < 0.001), and more positive screening attitude (β = 4.564, p < 0.001) were associated with more diabetic foot risk screening behaviors, while limited time and energy (β=-5.184, p < 0.001) and lack of screening tools (β=-6.226, p < 0.001) were associated with fewer diabetic foot screening behaviors.

The score of risk screening behaviors for the diabetic foot of general practitioners in Changsha was at a medium level. General practitioners' diabetic foot risk screening behaviors may be improved through strengthening training on relevant guidelines and evidence-based screening techniques, improving cognition and attitude towards foot risk screening among general practitioners, provision of more general practitioners or nurse practitioners, and user-friendly screening tools.

To investigate the barriers and facilitators of foot care practice in diabetic patients in Indonesia.

A qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted on 34 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, health providers and family members in Purwokerto, Indonesia, between July 2020 and December 2020. The interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 12.

Four themes emerged from data analysis, including personal barriers (low susceptibility of developing foot ulcer, limited knowledge about foot care, fatalistic practices, financial problems, glucose control taking priority over foot care, lack of motivation, lack of confidence, fear of being labelled), environmental barriers (lack of knowledge and time of health providers, lack of family support and climate conditions), perceived foot health benefits (intention to feel better and desire to stay socially active) and religious practices (foot washing as part of religious practice and intention to feel clean before praying).

The practice of diabetic self-care plays a significant role in maintaining and preventing diabetic foot complications, but low commitment to self-care practices is common. This study evaluates the effect of establishing protocol for self-care practice of diabetic foot patients according to their needs, concerns, and medication use. A quasi-experimental research (pre-test and post-test) design was used in outpatient clinics at Benha University Hospital, Egypt. The study included 100 adult patients diagnosed with diabetes (types I and II) for at least six months. The findings revealed that 79% suffered from burning or tingling in legs or feet; 74% complained of presence of redness of lower limb, legs or foot pain with activity, and loss of lower extremity sensation; and 80% had changes in skin colour or skin lesions. A comparison between the group pre- and post-intervention (protocol) showed that post-intervention patient foot care knowledge and self-care practice scores were higher. Also, 72% of the participants obtained good knowledge related to foot care post- protocol intervention compared to 37% pre- intervention. Based on the findings, the establishing intervention protocol fosters self-care practice and knowledge regarding needs, concerns, and medication use among diabetic foot patients. Therefore, this protocol can be applied in health practice and research in order to prevent diabetic foot ulcer, and thereby foot amputation.

To assess primary healthcare professionals' priority for managing diabetic foot disease (DFD) over the progressive course of the condition compared to other aspects of diabetes care.

DFD affects up to 60 million people globally. Evidence suggests that comprehensive preventative footcare may reduce serious complications of DFD, such as amputation.

A cross-sectional quantitative study reported according to STROBE statement.

General Practitioners (GPs) and Credentialled Diabetes Educators (CDEs) working within Australian primary care were invited to complete an online survey, to obtain information about preventative and early intervention footcare priorities and practices. Ten GPs and 84 CDEs completed the survey.

On diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) review was identified to be one of the top three priorities of care by 57 (61%) of participants whilst at 20-year history of diabetes 73 (78%) participants indicated its priority. Foot assessments became a priority for 78% (n = 73) of participants and podiatry referrals a priority for 53% (n = 50) of participants only when a "foot concern" was raised. Referrals to specialist high-risk foot podiatrists or services were a first priority for 56% (n = 53), when the person had significant amputation risk factors.

Diabetes-related preventative footcare assessments and management remain a low priority amongst primary healthcare professionals. Preventative care for asymptomatic complications, such as DFD, may be overlooked in favour of monitoring HbA1c or medication management. Limited prioritisation of footcare in primary care is concerning given the risks for amputation associated with DFD.

This study reveals the need for primary healthcare decision makers and clinicians to ensure preventative footcare is a focused priority earlier in the diabetes care continuum. Collaborative and widespread promotion of the importance of proactive rather than reactive footcare practices is required to support prevention of foot ulcers and amputation.

To determine the diabetic foot ulcer incidence and examine its association with microangiopathy complications, including diabetic retinopathy (DR) and albuminuria (Alb), in type 2 diabetes patients.

This was a retrospective cohort study of 1,305 patients with type 2 diabetes who were assigned to the following groups: Category 1, normoalbuminuria without DR (n = 712); Category 2, Alb without DR (n = 195); Category 3, normoalbuminuria with DR (n = 185); and Category 4, Alb with DR (n = 213). Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risks of developing diabetic foot ulcers across the categories.

During 14,249 person-years of follow-up, 50 subjects developed diabetic foot ulcers, with incidence rates of 1.6/1,000, 1.5/1,000, 3.4/1,000, and 12.5/1,000 person-years in Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. After adjusting for the presence of diabetic neuropathy and macroangiopathy, the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of diabetic foot ulcer development were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.18-2.36), 1.72 (95% CI, 0.67-4.42), and 3.17 (95% CI, 1.52-6.61) in Categories 2, 3, and 4, respectively, compared with Category 1.

The presence of DR and Alb significantly increases the risk of diabetic foot ulcer development.