↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of foot thermometry plus mHealth to prevent diabetic foot ulcers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
683 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
Implementation of foot thermometry plus mHealth to prevent diabetic foot ulcers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1333-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Lazo-Porras, Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz, Katherine A. Sacksteder, Robert H. Gilman, German Malaga, David G. Armstrong, J. Jaime Miranda

Abstract

Diabetic foot neuropathy (DFN) is one of the most important complications of diabetes mellitus; its early diagnosis and intervention can prevent foot ulcers and the need for amputation. Thermometry, measuring the temperature of the feet, is a promising emerging modality for diabetic foot ulcer prevention. However, patient compliance with at-home monitoring is concerning. Delivering messages to remind patients to perform thermometry and foot care might be helpful to guarantee regular foot monitoring. This trial was designed to compare the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) between participants who receive thermometry alone and those who receive thermometry as well as mHealth (SMS and voice messaging) over a year-long study period. This is an evaluator-blinded, randomized, 12-month trial. Individuals with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, aged between 18-80 years, having a present dorsalis pedis pulse in both feet, are in risk group 2 or 3 using the diabetic foot risk classification system (as specified by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot), have an operating cell phone or a caregiver with an operating cell phone, and have the ability to provide informed consent will be eligible to participate in the study. Recruitment will be performed in diabetes outpatient clinics at two Ministry of Health tertiary hospitals in Lima, Peru. participants in both groups will receive education about foot care at the beginning of the study and they will be provided with a thermometry device (TempStat™). TempStat™ is a tool that captures a thermal image of the feet, which, depending on the temperature of the feet, shows different colors. In this study, if a participant notes a single yellow image or variance between one foot and the contralateral foot, they will be prompted to notify a nurse to evaluate their activity within the previous 2 weeks and make appropriate recommendations. In addition to thermometry, participants in the intervention arm will receive an mHealth component in the form of SMS and voice messages as reminders to use the thermometry device, and instructions to promote foot care. the primary outcome is foot ulceration, evaluated by a trained nurse, occurring at any point during the study. This study has two principal contributions towards the prevention of DFU. First, the introduction of messages to promote self-management of diabetes foot care as well as using reminders as a strategy to improve adherence to daily home-based measurements. Secondly, the implementation of a thermometry-based strategy complemented by SMS and voice messages in an LMIC setting, with wider implications for scalability. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT02373592 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 683 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 680 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 131 19%
Student > Master 97 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 9%
Researcher 47 7%
Student > Postgraduate 30 4%
Other 109 16%
Unknown 209 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 188 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 134 20%
Psychology 24 4%
Social Sciences 19 3%
Engineering 14 2%
Other 79 12%
Unknown 225 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,197,937
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,750
of 314,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#19
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 314,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.