Skip to main content

Table 1 Study and participant characteristics

From: Patient-perceived and practitioner-perceived barriers to accessing foot care services for people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

Study

Location

Setting

Participant characteristics

Study design and methodology

Patients

Practitioners

Abu-Qamar et al., 2011 [12]

Jordan

Secondary

N = 7 (4 males, 3 females)

Patients with diabetes receiving treatment from a foot burn injury in secondary healthcare facilities

NA

Qualitative

Unstructured interviews

Alhyas et al., 2013 [13]

UAE (Abu-Dhabi)

Tertiary

NA

N = 9 (4 males, 5 females)

Practitioners working in a tertiary hospital diabetes center (3 diabetes specialists, 2 diabetes educators, 2 nurses, 1 dietician, and 1 podiatrist)

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Bergin et al., 2009 [14]

Australia (Victoria)

Primary

NA

N = 69

Podiatrists from community-based podiatry departments in community health centres

Quantitative

Self-administered Footcare Provider Survey

Burden, 1999 [15]

England (Leicester)

Primary & secondary

NA

N = 15

7 nurses, 2 chiropodists, 1 orthotist, 2 diabetologists, 2 GPs, and 1 public health consultant

Qualitative

Semi-structured questionnaire

Cuestra-Briand et al., 2014 [16]

Australia (Perth)

Primary

N = 38 (10 male, 28 female; 20 non-indigenous, 18 indigenous)

People with diabetes living in suburbs of socioeconomic disadvantage

NA

Qualitative

Focus groups, semi-structured interviews

Delea et al., 2015 [17]

Ireland (Republic of)

Tertiary

N = 10 (all male)

Patients with diabetes and active foot disease or lower limb amputation

NA

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Devlin et al., 2003 [18]

Australia

Primary, tertiary, & secondary

N = NR

People with diabetes with a history of lower limb ulceration or amputation (interviews)

N = NR

Key stakeholders and healthcare workers (diabetes educators, podiatrists, GPs, an endocrinologist, a general surgeon, a vascular surgeon, a community care manager, a project officer and pharmacists)

Mixed-methods

Surveys, workshops, interviews

Fayfman et al., 2020 [19]

USA (Atlanta, Georgia)

Tertiary

N = 40 (35 male, 5 female)

Patients with diabetes, with current or prior foot ulceration and/or minor amputations (below ankle) who were at high-risk for re-ulceration and further limb loss

NA

Mixed methods

Quantitative survey, focus groups

Flattau et al., 2021 [20]

USA (Bronx, New York)

Primary and tertiary

N = 16 (8 males, 8 females)

People with current or recent diabetic foot ulcers, predominantly from racial and ethnic minority groups

NA

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Guell et al., 2015 [21]

Barbados

Primary

N = 9 (6 males, 3 females)

Patients with diabetes

N = 11

4 doctors, 4 nurses and 2 podiatrists, and 1 private GP

Qualitative, exploratory

Semi-structured interviews

Harrison-Blount et al., 2014 [22]

India

Tertiary

NA

N = 11

Doctors or healthcare professionals in positions of heads or assistant heads of a department, and regularly involved in foot health problems

Qualitative

Focus groups, observations, individual conversations

Littman et al., 2021 [23]

USA

Tertiary

N = 61 (all males)

Veterans with diabetes who had undergone a toe amputation

NA

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Liu et al., 2021 [24]

China (Beijing)

Tertiary

N = 41 (12 males, 29 females)

Patients with diabetes, receiving treatment for diabetes foot complications at a tertiary hospital

NA

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Meloni et al., 2021 [25]

Italy

Secondary

NA

N = 99

Italian diabetes centres dedicated to diabetes foot care

Quantitative

Survey

Mirmiran et al., 2000 [26]

USA (San Francisco Bay Area)

Primary & secondary

N = 392 (179 males, 213 females)

Patients with diabetes who are members of the American Diabetes Association

NA

Quantitative

Survey

Mullan et al., 2021 [27]

Australia

Primary

NA

N = 16

Primary healthcare professionals (2 GPs and 14 diabetic educators)

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Pankhurst et al., 2018 [6]

United Kingdom

Primary & secondary

NA

N = 425

Healthcare professionals attending the 2015 and 2016 Masterclass multidisciplinary diabetes foot conferences at King’s College Hospital

Qualitative

Participants were asked to write down, in free text, the issues which they considered to constitute barriers to diabetic foot care

Parikh et al., 2013 [28]

USA

Primary

N = 11,274 (5490 males, 5784 females)

Adults that reported a diagnosis of diabetes and coronary heart disease

NA

Quantitative

2007 Centers for Disease Control Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey

Sutherland et al., 2020 [29]

USA

Primary & secondary

N = 5

Patients/caregivers with diabetic foot ulcers

N = 39

6 rural primary care providers, 12 rural specialists, 12 urban specialists, 9 support staff

Qualitative

Semi-structured interviews

Wong et al., 2005 [30]

Australia (Torres Straight and Northern Peninsula Area of Far North Queensland)

Primary

N = 67 (26 males, 41 females)

Torres Straight Islanders with diabetes

NA

Qualitative

Focus groups, interviews

  1. NA not applicable, NR not reported, GP general practitioner