SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist

Gökhan INANGİL
Necmettin AKDENİZ
Demet INANGİL
Emel METE
Berna DİNCER
Mustafa KANAT
Hasan AKSOY
Pages
130–138
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The reliability index was higher than 0.80.CONCLUSION: The BDURC-TR is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in clinics to identify the risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Turkey

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish translation of brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist (BDURC).METHODS: This methodological study was conducted at the diabetes clinic of a state hospital in Istanbul, Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data were collected with the BDURC developed by Zhou et al. in 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The reliability index was higher than 0.80.CONCLUSION: The BDURC-TR is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in clinics to identify the risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Turkey
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish translation of brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist (BDURC).METHODS: This methodological study was conducted at the diabetes clinic of a state hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. The data were collected with the BDURC developed by Zhou et al. in 2018. A study was conducted with 430 patients with Type 2 diabetes. The scale was retested after 4 weeks by 60 participants. Language equivalence of the scale was provided. Experts’ opinions were taken about the content validity of the scale. Reliability of the scale was determined with the test-retest reliability, item-total correlation, and internal consistency analysis.RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with good model suitability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale and its subscales was 0.79. Test-retest scores showed no statistically significant difference between the items (p>0.05). The reliability index was higher than 0.80.CONCLUSION: The BDURC-TR is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in clinics to identify the risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Turkey

🔖

Cite This Article

INANGİL, G., AKDENİZ, N., INANGİL, D., METE, E., DİNCER, B., KANAT, M., AKSOY, H. (2022). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of briefdiabetic foot ulceration risk checklist. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 130–138. https://ajindex.com/articles/551320

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Diabetes Atlas, 2019: 9th ed, 43-63. Available at: https://diabetesatlas.org/en/. Accessed Oct 10, 2019
  2. American Diabetes Association (ADA). Standarts of medical care in diabetes 2017. Diabetes Care 2017;40:11–4
  3. Türkiye Endokrinoloji ve Metabolizma Derneği (TEMD). Diyabetes mellitus ve komplikasyonlarının tanı, tedavi ve izlem kılavuzu. Ankara: Bayt Bilimsel Araştırmalar Basın ve Yayın; 2017
  4. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Temel Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Türkiye diyabet önleme ve kontrol programı eylem planı (2011-2014). Ankara: Anıl Matbaası; 2011
  5. Valensi P, Girod I, Baron F, Moreau-Defarges T, Guillon P. Quality of life and clinical correlates in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab 2005;31:263–71
  6. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, del Aguila M, Smith DG, Lavery LA, et al. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care 1999;22:157–62
  7. American Diabetes Association. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41: S73–S85
  8. Clayton W, Elasy TA. A review of the pathhophysiology, classification and treatment of foot ulcers in diabetic patients. Clinical Diabetes 2009;27:52–8
  9. Castillo A, Giachello A, Bates R, Concha J, Ramirez V, Sanchez C, et al. Community-based diabetes education for Latinos: the diabetes empowerment education program. Diabetes Educ 2010;36:586–94
  10. Crawford F, Cezard G, Chappell FM, Murray GD, Price JF, Sheikh A, et al. A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS). Health Technol Assess 2015;19:1–210
  11. Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, Tang S, Zhu D, Bi Y. Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis †. Ann Med 2017;49:106–16
  12. Zhou Q, Peng M, Zhou L, Bai J, Tong A, Liu M, et al. Development and validation of a brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist among diabetic patients: a multicenter longitudinal study in China. Sci Rep 2018;8:962
  13. Monteiro-Soares M, Russell D, Boyko EJ, Jeffcoate W, Mills JL, Morbach S, et al; International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019). Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2020;36 Suppl 1:e3273