'Nutrition has everything to do with wound healing'-health professionals' perceptions of assessment and management of nutrition in individuals with diabetes-related foot ulceration.

Determine how healthcare professionals perceive their role in nutrition assessment and management, and explore barriers and enablers to assessment and management of nutrition in individuals with DFU. Mixed methods including a cross-sectional online survey derived from current international guidelines and theoretical domains framework, and semi-structured interviews with conventional content analysis was performed. One hundred and ninety-one participants completed the survey, with 19 participating in interviews. Many health professionals are not confident in their ability in this area of practice, are uncertain their nutrition advice or management will be effective in assisting wound healing outcomes and are uncertain their intervention would result in adequate behaviour change by the individual with DFU. Major barriers to implementation of nutrition assessment and management were: inadequate time, lack of knowledge and lack of clinical guidance and enablers were as follows: professional development, a standardised clinical pathway and screening tool and a resource addressing wound healing and diabetes management. Nutrition assessment and management in individuals with DFU is not consistently applied. Whilst health professionals believed nutrition was important for wound healing, they lacked confidence in implementing into their practice. Further dissemination of existing guidance and implementation of education programs and resources would help overcome cited barriers.

How far has diabetes-related foot disease research progressed in Australia? A bibliometric review (1970-2023).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian and global disease burdens and requires proportionate volumes of research to address. Bibliometric analyses are rigorous methods for exploring total research publications in a field to help identify volume trends, gaps and emerging areas of need. This bibliometric review aimed to explore the volume, authors, institutions, journals, collaborating countries, research types and funding sources of Australian publications investigating DFD over 50 years. METHODS: A systematic search of the Scopus® database was conducted by two independent authors to identify all Australian DFD literature published between 1970 and 2023. Bibliometric meta-data were extracted from Scopus®, analyzed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface, and publication volumes, authors, institutions, journals and collaborative countries were described. Publications were also categorised for research type and funding source. RESULTS: Overall, 332 eligible publications were included. Publication volume increased steadily over time, with largest volumes (78%) and a 7-fold increase over the last decade. Mean co-authors per publication was 5.6, mean journal impact factor was 2.9 and median citation was 9 (IQR2-24). Most frequent authors were Peter Lazzarini (14%), Vivienne Chuter (8%) and Jonathon Golledge (7%). Most frequent institutions affiliated were Queensland University Technology (33%), University Sydney (30%) and James Cook University (25%). Most frequent journals published in were Journal Foot and Ankle Research (17%), Diabetic Medicine (7%), Journal Diabetes and its Complications (4%) and International Wound Journal (4%). Most frequent collaborating countries were the United Kingdom (9%), the Netherlands (6%) and the United States (5%). Leading research types were etiology (38%), treatment evaluation (25%) and health services research (13%). Leading funding sources were no funding (60%), internal institution (16%) and industry/philanthropic/international (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Australian DFD research increased steadily until more dramatic increases were seen over the past decade. Most research received no funding and mainly investigated etiology, existing treatments or health services. Australian DFD researchers appear to be very productive, particularly in recent times, despite minimal funding indicating their resilience. However, if the field is to continue to rapidly grow and address the very large national DFD burden, much more research funding is needed in Australia, especially targeting prevention and clinical trials of new treatments in DFD.

Most individuals with diabetes-related foot ulceration do not meet dietary consensus guidelines for wound healing.

The inaugural expert consensus and guidance for Nutrition Interventions in Adults with Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU) have been welcomed by clinicians internationally. This short report aimed to determine how the macronutrient and micronutrient status of individuals living with DFU compared to the American Limb Preservation Society Nutrition Interventions in Adults with DFU expert consensus and guidance. Descriptive analysis was conducted as a secondary analysis of an existing dataset. Mean (SD) dietary intake, the proportion meeting the nutrition recommendations and the proportion exceeding the upper limit (UL) for specific vitamins and minerals were reported. Most individuals with DFU do not meet current consensus guidelines for optimal dietary intake for wound healing, with inadequacies evident for fibre, zinc, protein, vitamin E and vitamin A. Future iterations of the consensus guideline should consider using evidence-informed recommendations for clinical practice, with the inclusion of all nutrients that are essential for wound healing in DFU.

How Footwear Is Assessed in Patient Reported Measures for People with Arthritis: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: In people with arthritis, footwear may influence foot function, pain, and mobility. In order to measure the effectiveness of interventions and patient experience, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are frequently used. The aim of the scoping review was to identify footwear item content within foot-specific PROMs and PREMs used in people with arthritis. METHOD: Original studies that developed or validated a footwear-inclusive PROM or PREM for use in people with arthritis affecting the foot were included. A comprehensive search was conducted using AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Ovid Emcare and Embase. A content analysis of extracted footwear content items was performed, by coding item content and grouping into broad themes, then further narrowing down and defining themes under five main categories. RESULTS: Nineteen articles satisfied inclusion criteria for this scoping exercise. Eleven PROMs met the inclusion criteria, five of which were designed for use in disease-specific populations (rheumatoid arthritis and gout) and six designed for generic populations. Categories of the footwear specific content from the PROMs included pain, impairment and function, shoe-specific characteristics, and psychosocial aspects. None of the included PROMs assessed footwear satisfaction. Eight PREMs relating to footwear experiences were identified. Seven of the PREMs were disease specific (inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic sclerosis) and one was generic. Content of the footwear-related items of the included PREMs were categorized under pain, impairment and function, footwear satisfaction, and shoe-specific characteristics. None of the PREM studies reported on psychosocial aspects of footwear. CONCLUSIONS: Many different instruments have been used to measure the experience of footwear in patients with arthritis. However, no comprehensive tool that evaluates footwear and its relationship with pain, impairment, and disability; the psychosocial aspects of footwear; specific footwear features; and satisfaction is currently available for use in people with arthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.