Display options
Share it on

J Foot Ankle Res. 2009 Nov 25;2:34. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-2-34.

A questionnaire for determining prevalence of diabetes related foot disease (Q-DFD): construction and validation.

Journal of foot and ankle research

Shan M Bergin, Caroline A Brand, Peter G Colman, Donald A Campbell

Affiliations

  1. Monash Institute of Health Services Research, Monash University, Kanooka Gve Clayton, Melbourne, Australia.
  2. Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Gratten St, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
  3. Clinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit, The Royal Melbourne, Hospital, Gratten St, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
  4. Centre for Research Excellence in Patient Safety, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
  5. Department of General Medicine, Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia.

PMID: 19939276 PMCID: PMC2789712 DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-2-34

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Community based prevalence for diabetes related foot disease (DRFD) has been poorly quantified in Australian populations. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a survey tool to facilitate collection of community based prevalence data for individuals with DRFD via telephone interview.

METHODS: Agreed components of DRFD were identified through an electronic literature search. Expert feedback and feedback from a population based construction sample were sought on the initial draft. Survey reliability was tested using a cohort recruited through a general practice, a hospital outpatient clinic and an outpatient podiatry clinic. Level of agreement between survey findings and either medical record or clinical assessment was evaluated.

RESULTS: The Questionnaire for Diabetes Related Foot Disease (Q-DFD) comprised 12 questions aimed at determining presence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PN) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD), based on self report of symptoms and/or clinical history, and self report of foot ulceration, amputation and foot deformity. Survey results for 38 from 46 participants demonstrated agreement with either clinical assessment or medical record (kappa 0.65, sensitivity 89.0%, and specificity 77.8%). Correlation for individual survey components was moderate to excellent. Inter and intrarater reliability and test re-test reliability was moderate to high for all survey domains.

CONCLUSION: The development of the Q-DFD provides an opportunity for ongoing collection of prevalence estimates for DRFD across Australia.

References

  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Oct;45(10):1101-9 - PubMed
  2. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2000 Sep-Oct;16 Suppl 1:S84-92 - PubMed
  3. Adv Wound Care. 1999 Apr;12(3):139-41 - PubMed
  4. Diabetologia. 2007 Jan;50(1):18-25 - PubMed
  5. Diabet Med. 2003 Feb;20(2):105-13 - PubMed
  6. Vasc Med. 2001;6(2):87-96 - PubMed
  7. Diabetes Care. 2008 Aug;31(8):1679-85 - PubMed
  8. Diabetes Care. 2003 Dec;26(12):3333-41 - PubMed
  9. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1998 Jul;41(1):63-9 - PubMed
  10. Diabetes. 1997 Sep;46 Suppl 2:S5-8 - PubMed
  11. Diabetes Care. 2008 Jan;31(1):26-9 - PubMed
  12. Diabet Med. 2005 Feb;22(2):127-36 - PubMed
  13. Diabet Med. 2002 May;19(5):377-84 - PubMed
  14. Diabet Med. 2002 Nov;19(11):962-5 - PubMed
  15. Muscle Nerve. 1988 Jul;11(7):661-7 - PubMed
  16. J Diabetes Complications. 2004 Jan-Feb;18(1):27-31 - PubMed
  17. Circulation. 1993 Aug;88(2):819-28 - PubMed
  18. Int J Clin Pract. 2008 Jul;62(7):1019-25 - PubMed
  19. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007 Apr;76(1):82-92 - PubMed
  20. Diabetes Care. 2004 Dec;27(12):2843-9 - PubMed
  21. Diabetes Care. 1998 Jan;21(1):42-8 - PubMed
  22. Med J Aust. 2000 Oct 2;173(7):352-4 - PubMed
  23. Ann Saudi Med. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):25-31 - PubMed

Publication Types