An action research approach to facilitating the adoption of a foot health assessment tool in India

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

Anita E. Williams¹  Christopher J. Nester¹  Michelle Cullen¹  Michael Harrison-Blount¹ 

[1] School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Social Care, University of Salford, Frederick Road, Salford M6 6PU, UK

关键词: Foot health assessment;    Action research;    Diabetes;   

Others  :  1225190
DOI  :  10.1186/s13047-015-0108-3

 received in 2015-04-17, accepted in 2015-09-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

India has a diabetes population that is growing and alongside this, the incidence of limb threatening foot problems is increasing. Foot health care provision does not yet meet this demand. In one locality in India, clinicians had an unstructured approach to foot health assessments resulting in poor adoption of evidence based guidelines from the West and a persistence of serious foot complications. There was the perception that existing assessment tools did not take into account the local cultural, organizational and professional needs and there was a lack of ownership of any potential solution to the problem. Therefore, the aim of this work was to facilitate the ownership and development of a foot health assessment tool for use in the Indian context. In order to achieve this an action research approach was chosen.

Methods

Participants were facilitated through the action and implementation phases of the action research cycle by the researchers. The action phase included generating a list of potential items for inclusion in the tool from a review of the literature to provide an evidence based foundation for the foot health assessment tool. A modified Delphi method was used to further refine the contents of the tool. Members of the Delphi Panel (n = 8) were experts in their field of medicine and experts in delivering health care within services in India.

Results

The outcome of the study was the adoption of a locally developed foot health assessment tool (Salford Indian Foot Health Assessment Tool, SIFT). It contains thirteen sections, which reflect the risk factors identified for assessing foot health agreed by the participants to fit the Indian context. The SIFT is supported with evidence based guidelines from the West and a training program was delivered by the researchers in order to support its implementation into clinical practice.

Conclusion

An action research approach has facilitated the development and implementation of a locally created and owned foot health assessment tool. This in turn has resulted in the integration of evidence-based guidelines from the West with consideration to local cultural, organizational and professional needs and ultimately the needs of their patients. Further work is underway evaluating the outcomes of the SIFT in practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Harrison-Blount et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]International Diabetes Federation, IDF Diabetes Atlas 6th ed. 2013, Retrieved from. http://www. idf.org/diabetesatlas. webcite
• [2]5th International Symposium on The Diabetic Foot, The Diabetic Foot Journal. 2007; 10(2): 108–110.
• [3]Bakker K, Abbas ZG, Pendsey S. Step by Step, improving diabetic foot care in the developing world. A pilot study for India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Practical Diabetes Int. 2006; 23:365-9.
• [4]Apelqvist J. Diabetic foot ulcers: evidence, cost and management. The diabetic Foot J. 2007; 10:6-8.
• [5]Harrison-Blount M, Cullen M, Nester CJ, Williams AE. The assessment and management of diabetes related lower limb problems in India-an action research approach to integrating best practice. Journal of foot and ankle research., 2014. doi:10.1186/1757-1146-7-30.
• [6]Halfens R, Van Linghe R. Dissemination and implementation of knowledge. State of the art studies. LEVV, The Netherlands; 2003.
• [7]Funk G, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist EM. Barriers to using research findings in practice. The clinician’s perspective. Applied Nursing Res. 1991; 4(2):90-95.
• [8]Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Quality in Health Care. 1998; 7:149-158.
• [9]Denis JL, Hebert Y, Langley A, Lozeau D, Trottier LH. Explaining diffusion patterns for complex health care innovations. Health Care Management Re- view. 2002; 27(3):60-73.
• [10]Dopson S, FitzGerald L, Ferlie E, Gabbay J, Locock L. No magic targets! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based. Health Care Management Rev. 2002; 27(3):35-47.
• [11]National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for Type 2 Diabetes: Prevention and Management of Foot Problems. Clinical guideline 10. 2004. Retrieved from http//www.nice.org.uk/CG10
• [12]Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2008.
• [13]Cook C, Brismée J, Pietrobon R. Development of a quality checklist using Delphi methods for prescriptive clinical prediction rules: the QUADCPR. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010; 33:29-41.
• [14]Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1995.
• [15]Diamonds IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies 2013. Retrieved from.
• [16]Haines S, Baker T, Donaldson M. Development of a physical performance assessment checklist for athletes who sustained a lower extremity injury in preparation for return to sport: A Delphi study. Int J Sports Phys Ther.2013;8(1):44–53.
• [17]Deming Hedman L, Morris DM, Graham CL, Brown CJ, Ford MP, Ingram DA et al.. Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion: A Delphi survey. Physical Therapy. 2014; 94(1):52-67.
• [18]Noffke S, Somekh B. Action research. In: Research methods in the social sciences. Lewin BSC, editor. Sage, London; 2005: p.89-96.
• [19]Pill J. The Delphi Method: substance, context, a critique and annotated bibliography. Socio Economic Planning Sci. 1971; 5:57-71.
• [20]The Delphi Technique in Pain Research. SNCPR, The Delphi Technique in Pain Research. Scottish Network for Chronic Pain Research; 2001. Retrieved from http://www. sncpr.org.uk/delphi.htm
• [21]Kerr M. The Delphi Process. The Delphi Process 2002 City: Remote and Rural Areas Research Initiative, NHS in Scotland., 2001; Retrieved from. http://www. rararibids.org.uk/documents/bid79-delphi.htm. webcite
• [22]Tripp-Reimer T, Choi E, Skemp Kelley L, Enslein JC. Cultural barriers to care: inverting the problem. Diabetes Spectrum. 2001; 14(1):13-22.
• [23]Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Advanced Nursing. 2006; 12(6):729-734.
• [24]Pendsey S, Abbas ZG. World Diabetes Federation report. 2008;03–056. http://www. worlddiabetesfoundation.org/sites/default/files/AR2007_reduced.pdf webcite
• [25]Baker J, Lovell K, Harris N. How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of 'expert' within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Researcher. 2006;14:59–69.
• [26]Strauss HJ, Ziegler HL. The Delphi and its use in social science research. J Creative Behav. 1975; 9:253259.
• [27]Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM. Ontology and rationalization in the Western Cultural Account’. In: Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism. Scott WR, Meyer JW, editors. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 1994: p.9-27.
• [28]Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2001.
• [29]Chhokar JS, Brodbeck FC, House RJ. India. Diversity and Complexity in Action. In: Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. House RJ, editor. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York; 2008: p.971-1020.
• [30]Sinha JBP, Kanungo RN. Context Sensitivity and Balancing in Indian Organization behaviour. Int J Psychol. 1997; 32(2):93-105.
• [31]Cappelli P, Singh H, Singh J, Useem M. The India Way: How India’s Top Leaders are Revolutionizing Management. Harvard Business Press, Boston; 2010.
• [32]Garg RK, Singh TP. Management of Change - A Comprehensive Review. Global J Flexible Systems Management. 2006; 7(1/2):45-60.
• [33]Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Advanced Nursing. 1994; 19:180-186.
• [34]Adler M, Ziglio E. Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi Method and its application to social policy and public health. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London; 1996.
• [35]Linstone H, Turloff M. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, London, UK; 1975.
• [36]Rowe G, Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Int J Forecasting. 1999; 15(4):353-375.
• [37]Delbeq A, Van de Ven A, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, USA; 1975.
• [38]Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Res Methodol. 2003;3:1–25.
• [39]Fahera S, Carpenter L, Seers K. Development of a tool to rate the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials using a Delphi technique. J Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25(6):1262-1268.
• [40]Nekolaichuk CL, Fainsinger RL, Lawlor PG. The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain: Comparison of pain classification features and pain intensity across diverse palliative care settings in eight countries. J Palliative Medicine. 2013; 16(5):516-523.
• [41]Hagen NA, Stiles C, Nekolaichuk C, Biondo P, Carlson LE, Fisher K, et al. The Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients: a validation study using a Delphi process and patient think-aloud interviews. J Pain Symptom Management. 2008;35(2):136–52.
• [42]Palter VN, MacRae HM, Grantcharov TP. Development of an objective evaluation tool to assess technical skill in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a Delphi methodology. Am J Surg. 2011; 201(2):251-259.
• [43]Ramanan AV. Developing a disease activity tool for systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis by international consensus using the Delphi approach. Rheumatology. 2005; 44(12):1574-1578.
• [44]Santrock JW. A Topical Approach to Human Life-span Development. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, St. Louis, MO; 2007.
• [45]The Power of Belief: Psychosocial influence on illness, disability and medicine. Oxford University Press, UK; 2006.
• [46]DiMatteo MR, Haskard KB, Williams SL. Health beliefs, disease severity, and patient adherence: A meta-analysis. Medical Care. 2007;45:521–8. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e318032937e.
• [47]Thompson L, Nester C, Stuart L, Wiles P. Interclinician variation in diabetes foot assessment—a national lottery? Diabetes UK. Diabetic Medicine 2004; 196–199 doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01397.x.
• [48]Apelvist J, Bakker K, Van Houtum W, Nabuurs-Fransen M, Schaper N. International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, Amsterdam; 1996.
• [49]Peters JG, Lavery LA. Effectiveness of the Diabetic Foot Risk Classification System of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24:1442-1447.
• [50]Redelmeier D, Tu J, Schull M, Ferris L, Hux JE. Problems for clinical judgement: Obtaining a reliable past medical history. Can Med Assoc J. 2001; 164:809-813.
• [51]Bower VM, Hobbs M. Validation of the Basic Foot Screening Checklist. A Population Screening Tool for Identifying Foot Ulcer Risk in People with Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association., 2009;99(4).
• [52]Toro B, Nester CJ, Farren PC. The Development and Validity of the Salford Gait Tool: An Observation-Based Clinical Gait Assessment Tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(3):321-7.
• [53]McInnes A, Baird S. Diabetic foot care training in the absence of podiatrists. Diabetic Foot J. 2009; 12(3):104-110.
• [54]Murugesan N, Shobana R, Snehalatha C, Kapur A, Ramachandra A. Immediate impact of a diabetes training programme for primary care physicians- An endeavour for national capacity building for diabetes management in India. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2009; 83:140-144.
• [55]Bakker K, Abbas ZG, Pendsey S. Step by step, improving diabetic foot care in the developing world. Practical Diabetes Int. 2006; 23(8):365-369.
• [56]Thompson D, Estabrooks C, Scott-Findlay S, Moore K, Wallin L. Interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing: A systematic review. Implementation Science. 2007; 2(1):1-16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [57]Dufault MA, Bielecki C, Collins E, Willey C. Changing nurses’ pain assessment practice: A collabo- rative research utilization approach. J Advanced Nursing. 1995; 21(4):634-645.