Table 6 Summary public consultation survey responses across all six guidelines (n = 47)

 1

You are involved with the care of patients for whom this draft Australian guideline is relevant.

47

31 (66.0%)

9 (19.1%)

7 (14.9%)

0

0

 2

There is a need for a new Australian guideline in this population.

47

23 (48.9%)

20 (42.6%)

3 (6.4%)

1 (2.1%)

0

 3

The rationale for developing a new Australian guideline on this topic is clear in this draft guideline.

47

29 (61.7%)

17 (36.2%)

1 (2.1%)

0

0

 4

I agree with the overall methodology used to develop this draft Australian guideline.

47

20 (42.6%)

23 (48.9%)

4 (8.5%)

0

0

 5

The search strategy used to identify international guidelines on which this draft Australian guideline was based is relevant and complete

47

19 (40.4%)

23 (48.9%)

4 (8.5%)

1 (2.1%)

0

 6

The methods used to determine the suitability of identified international source guidelines upon which this draft Australian guideline were based were robust.

47

20 (42.6%)

21 (44.7%)

6 (12.8%)

0

0

 7

I agree with the methods used within this draft Australian guideline to interpret the available evidence on this topic.

47

18 (38.3%)

24 (51.1%)

5 (10.6%)

0

0

 8

The methods used to decide which recommendations to adopt, adapt or exclude for the Australian context were objective and transparent.

47

17 (36.2%)

27 (57.4%)

3 (6.4%)

0

0

 9

The recommendations in this draft Australian guideline are clear.

46

22 (47.8%)

19 (41.3%)

4 (8.7%)

1 (2.2%)

0

 10

I agree with the recommendations in this draft Australian guideline as stated.

46

14 (30.4%)

24 (52.2%)

5 (10.9%)

3 (6.5%)

0

 11

The recommendations are suitable for people living with diabetes-related foot disease.

46

15 (32.6%)

26 (56.5%)

3 (6.5%)

2 (4.3%)

0

 12

The recommendations are too rigid to apply for people living with diabetes-related foot disease.

46

3 (6.5%)

4 (8.7%)

8 (17.4%)

27 (58.7%)

6 (13.0%)

 13

The recommendations reflect a more effective approach to improving patient outcomes than is current practice.

46

10 (21.7%)

13 (28.3%)

17 (37.0%)

6 (13.0%)

0

 14

When applied, the recommendations should produce more benefits than harms for people living with diabetes-related foot disease.

46

19 (41.3%)

22 (47.8%)

4 (8.7%)

1 (2.2%)

0

 15

When applied, the recommendations should result in better use of resources than current practice allows.

46

16 (34.8%)

13 (28.3%)

13 (28.3%)

4 (8.7%)

0

 16

I would feel comfortable if people living with diabetes-related foot disease received the care recommended in this draft Australian guideline.

46

21 (45.7%)

20 (43.5%)

5 (10.9%)

0

0

 17

To apply the draft Australian guideline may require reorganisation of services/care.

45

9 (20.0%)

18 (40.0%)

12 (26.7%)

5 (11.1%)

1 (2.2%)

 18

To apply the draft Australian guideline may be technically challenging.

45

6 (13.3%)

19 (42.2%)

14 (31.1%)

4 (8.9%)

2 4.4%)

 19

The draft Australian guideline may be too expensive to apply.

45

8 (17.8%)

5 (11.1%)

15 (33.3%)

13 (28.9%)

4 (8.9%)

 20

The draft Australian guideline presents options that will likely be acceptable to people living with diabetes-related foot disease.

45

10 (22.2%)

29 (64.4%)

2 (4.4%)

4 (8.9%)

0

 21

This draft guideline should be approved as the new Australian guideline.

45

19 (42.2%)

18 (40.0%)

6 (13.3%)

2 (4.4%)

0

 22

This draft Australian guideline would be supported by the majority of my colleagues.

45

17 (37.8%)

22 (48.9%)

6 (13.3%)

0

0

 23

If this draft guideline was to be approved as the new Australian guideline, I would use or encourage their use in practice.

45

23 (51.1%)

18 (40.0%)

3 (6.7%)

1 (2.2%)

0