4.3 Article

Evaluation of a neuropathic ulcers prevention program for patients with diabetes

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 31-37

出版社

ASSOCIACAO BRASILEIRA PESQUISA POS-GRADUACAO FISIOTERAPIA-ABRAPG-FT
DOI: 10.1590/S1413-35552010000100006

关键词

diabetic foot; primary prevention health education; shoes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Neuropathic foot ulcers are among the major health problems faced by patients with diabetes mellitus. Objective: To evaluate the preventive efficacy of a therapeutic education and protective footwear program in the incidence and recurrence of neuropathic ulcers due to diabetes. Methods: Fifty-three patients with diabetes and neuropathy from a public healthcare unit in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, took part in a clinical trial for two years. The participants were randomly allocated to an intervention group (n=30) or a control group (n=23). Therapeutic education was, provided in group sessions, and protective footwear was supplied in accordance with individual prescriptions. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used to determine differences in incidence and recurrence of ulceration between the groups. Life-table analysis and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to measure the duration of ulcer-free survival. Results: In the intervention group, the ulcer incidence rate was 38.1% compared to 51.1% in the control group. Among the participants who presented ulcers, 83% were in the control group and 16.7% in the intervention group. After one year, the participants in the intervention group had a 75% chance Of being ulcer-free, compared with 61% in the control group, and these percentages reduced to 60% and 52% respectively after two years. There was a tendency toward shorter survival among the control group participants. Conclusion: Although the proposed program lowered recurrence rates and increased the duration of ulcer-free survival, it was unable to prevent occurrence and recurrence of neuropathic ulcers due to diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据