Trial reportBMC public health2025
Effectiveness of pictorial educational intervention on foot care among individuals having type 2 diabetes at slums of Karachi, Pakistan: asingle blinded randomized control trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes elevates the chance of severe health complications, such as Diabetic Foot (DF), which detrimentally affects quality of life. A significant proportion of diabetes mellitus patients, particularly in the slums of Karachi, lack awareness of foot care, hence increasing their risk of foot ulcers and amputations. This exacerbates the healthcare cost owing to avoidable complications of diabetes.
aimThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pictorial infographic-based foot care education intervention among patients with diabetes in the slums of Karachi, Pakistan. By assessing the impact of this intervention, we aimed to provide valuable insights into the design of future diabetes care and education programs. METHODOLOGY: A single-blinded randomized control trial was conducted at one clinic of the primary healthcare organization SINA, providing primary healthcare services in slums. Using repeated measures of ANOVA to evaluate the effect of group (intervention vs. control), time (pre-and post), and their interaction on scores and pair t-test to check the mean difference of scores in intervention and control group at baseline and after 3 months. The data were cleaned and analyzed in STATA 17.
resultsOf 180 individuals, 90 were in each arm-intervention and control. In the intervention arm, 83 completed follow-up and 77 in the control. In the control and interventional groups, 77.9% and 80.7% of 160 participants were female. Participants' mean age, BMI, and diagnosis years were 54.92 ± 10.41 years, 28.99 ± 6.22, and 7.99 ± 6, respectively. The repeated measures ANOVA showed significant main effects for both groups (F (1, 158) = 45.65, p < 0.0001) and time (F(1, 158) = 172.30, p < 0.0001), showing significant changes in scores. A substantial interaction effect between group and time indicates that ratings changed differently over time for the two groups. The intervention affected the groups differently, with considerable variations over time. Additionally, after education intervention, the intervention arm showed a significant improvement in mean difference (mean difference: 3.53, 95% CI 3.11-3.96, p < 0.001) compared to the control group (mean difference: 0.87, 95% CI 0.34-1.40, p < 0.001) from baseline.
conclusionEducation had a crucial role in positively impacting patient behavior. Therefore, patients must be actively involved in their healthcare education awareness, focusing more on modifying their behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.