↓ Skip to main content

Identifying type 2 diabetes risk classification systems and recommendations for review of podiatric care in an Australian Aboriginal health clinic

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying type 2 diabetes risk classification systems and recommendations for review of podiatric care in an Australian Aboriginal health clinic
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13047-015-0089-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Blatchford, Pam Morey, Ruth McConigley

Abstract

There are several risk classification systems developed to facilitate diabetic foot assessments and prioritise diabetes patients for foot prevention services according to risk factors. Utilisation of both The University of Texas Diabetic Foot Risk Classification System (UTDFRCS) and The National Evidence-Based Guideline on Prevention, Identification and Management of Foot Complications in Diabetes (Part of the Guidelines on Management of Type 2 Diabetes), allows guidance for the podiatrist in terms of review timeframes for future assessments and treatment. The aim of this clinical audit was to classify Aboriginal type 2 diabetes subjects' risk status according to UTDFRCS and identify if evidence based standards are being met for podiatry services at the Albury-Wodonga Aboriginal Health Service in New South Wales, Australia. A retrospective clinical audit over a twenty six month period was undertaken at the Albury-Wodonga Aboriginal Health Service, New South Wales. This is a primary health care facility that started podiatry services in August 2011. The primary variables of interest were the UTDFRCS for each subject and whether those participants met or did not meet the National Evidence-Based Guideline for review appointment timeframes. Other variables of interest include age, gender, duration of diabetes, occasions of visits and cancelled and failure to attend appointments to the podiatry service over the data collection period. There was excellent overall adherence (94 %) of this sample population (n = 729) to the National Evidence-Based Guideline for podiatric review timeframes according to their risk status. Males were reported to be less likely to comply with the review timeframes compared to women. There was no association between risk status and age (OR = 1.04, p = 0.11), duration of diabetes (OR = 1.03, p = 0.71) or gender (OR = 0.77, p = 0.67). Regular foot examinations aid in stratifying patients according to risk status, guiding podiatry interventions to reduce the likelihood of ulceration and amputation. This primary health care setting has achieved podiatric evidence based standards for Aboriginal people with type 2 diabetes, demonstrated by acceptable timeframes for review appointments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,609,587
of 5,450,695 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#276
of 335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,609
of 190,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#28
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,450,695 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 190,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.