Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary public consultation survey responses (n = 14)

From: Australian guideline on offloading treatment for foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease

No. Item n Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Background
 1 You are involved with the care of patients for whom this draft Australian offloading guideline is relevant. 14 11
(78.6%)
0 3
(21.4%)
0 0
 2 There is a need for a new Australian offloading guideline in this population. 14 9
(64.35%
5
(35.7%)
0 0 0
 3 The rationale for developing a new Australian offloading guideline on this topic is clear in this draft guideline. 14 9
(64.35%
5
(35.7%)
0 0 0
Methodology
 4 I agree with the overall methodology used to develop this draft Australian offloading guideline. 14 6
(42.9%)
6
(42.9%)
2
(14.3%)
0 0
 5 The search strategy used to identify international guidelines on which this draft Australian offloading guideline was based is relevant and complete 14 5
(35.7%)
7
(50.0%)
2
(14.3%)
0 0
 6 The methods used to determine the suitability of identified international source guidelines upon which this draft Australian offloading guideline were based were robust. 14 5
(35.7%)
7
(50.0%)
2
(14.3%)
0 0
 7 I agree with the methods used within this draft Australian offloading guideline to interpret the available evidence on this topic. 14 5
(35.7%)
7
(50.0%)
2
(14.3%)
0 0
 8 The methods used to decide which recommendations to adopt, adapt or exclude for the Australian context were objective and transparent. 14 5
(35.7%)
8
(57.1%)
1
(7.1%)
0 0
Recommendations
 9 The recommendations in this draft Australian offloading guideline are clear. 14 8
(57.1%)
4
(28.6%)
2
(14.3%)
0 0
 10 I agree with the recommendations in this draft Australian offloading guideline as stated. 14 5
(35.7%)
6
(42.9%)
3
(21.4%)
0 0
 11 The recommendations are suitable for people living with diabetes-related foot disease. 14 5
(35.7%)
6
(42.9%)
1
(7.1%)
1
(7.1%)
0
 12 The recommendations are too rigid to apply for people living with diabetes-related foot disease. 14 2
(14.3%)
1
(7.1%)
3
(21.4%)
6
(42.9%)
2
(14.3%)
 13 The recommendations reflect a more effective approach to improving patient outcomes than is current practice. 14 5
(35.7%)
3
(21.4%)
4
(28.6%)
2
(14.3%)
0
 14 When applied, the recommendations should produce more benefits than harms for people living with diabetes-related foot disease. 14 7
(50%)
6
(42.9%)
1
(7.1%)
0 0
 15 When applied, the recommendations should result in better use of resources than current practice allows. 14 6
(42.9%)
4
(28.6%)
3
(21.4%)
1
(7.1%)
0
 16 I would feel comfortable if people living with diabetes-related foot disease received the care recommended in this draft Australian offloading guideline. 14 8
(57.1%)
4
(28.6%)
2
(14.3%)
0 0
Implementation of recommendations
 17 To apply the draft Australian offloading guideline may require reorganisation of services/care. 13 5
(38.5%)
5
(38.5%)
2
(15.4%)
1
(7.7%)
0
 18 To apply the draft Australian offloading guideline may be technically challenging. 13 4
(30.8%)
6
(46.2%)
2
(15.4%)
1
(7.7%)
0
 19 The draft Australian offloading guideline may be too expensive to apply. 13 4
(30.8%)
2
(23.1%)
3
(23.1%)
3
(23.1%)
1
(7.7%)
 20 The draft Australian offloading guideline presents options that will likely be acceptable to people living with diabetes-related foot disease. 13 3
(23.1%)
7
(53.9%)
1
(7.7%)
2
(15.4%)
0
Final thoughts
 21 This draft guideline should be approved as the new Australian offloading guideline. 13 6
(46.2%)
5
(38.5%)
1
(7.7%)
1
(7.7%)
0
 22 This draft Australian offloading guideline would be supported by the majority of my colleagues. 13 5
(38.5%)
7
(53.9%)
1
(7.7%)
0 0
 23 If this draft guideline was to be approved as the new Australian offloading guideline, I would use or encourage their use in practice. 13 8
(61.5%)
4
(30.8%)
1
(7.7%)
0 0