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

 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

 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

 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

 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

 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