Diabetic Foot Risk and Ulcer Burden Among Community- Dwelling Adults With Diabetes: A Multisite Study

Résumé fourni par la source

ObjectiveThe extent of clinical issues related diabetic foot risk within the community remains undetermined. This study, therefore, aims to examine the prevalence of diabetic foot neuropathy and associated clinical problems in a community context.MethodsA multisite cross-sectional study was conducted in 2025 among adults with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the Prolanis program across four public health centers. A total of 130 eligible participants were included and completed standardized interviews and diabetic foot assessments. Diabetes-related foot conditions and Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) assessed by a certified wound care nurse using monofilament test. Diabetes-related foot conditions were assessed using a standardized diabetic foot examination protocol conducted by certified wound care. Data were analyzed and summarized descriptively; associations with neuropathy status were tested using appropriate bivariate tests.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 54.97 ± 8.42 years. Neuropathy was identified in 80.16% of respondents. The most common clinical diabetic foot problems were onychomycosis (68.85%), dry skin (54.92%), dirty skin (40.98%), claw toe deformity (33.61%), hammer toe deformity (31.97%), and ingrown nails (28.69%). Significant associations with neuropathy status were observed for onychomycosis (p = 0.026), ingrown nails (p = 0.041), hammer toe deformity (p = 0.010), callus (p = 0.026), and corns (p = 0.041) than those without neuropathy.ConclusionThis epidemiological study highlights the substantial burden of DPN and multiple diabetic foot problems among community-dwelling patients with DM enrolled in the Prolanis program, with onychomycosis, hammer toe, claw toe, dry skin, and poor foot hygiene identified as the most prevalent conditions.KeywordsCommunity-dwelling adults, diabetic foot ulcer, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, foot problem

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.