International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Diabetic Foot Assessment and Care: Barriers and Facilitators in a Cross-Sectional Study in Bangalore, India Sudha B. G. 1, * , Umadevi V. 1 , Joshi Manisha Shivaram 2 , Pavan Belehalli 3 , Shekar M. A. 3 , Chaluvanarayana H. C. 3 , Mohamed Yacin Sikkandar 4 and Marcos Leal Brioschi 5 1 2 3 4 5 * Citation: B. G., S.; V., U.; Shivaram, J.M.; Belehalli, P.; M. A., S.; H. C., C.; Sikkandar, M.Y.; Brioschi, M.L. Diabetic Foot Assessment and Care: Barriers and Facilitators in a Department of Computer Science and Engineering, B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore 560019, India Department of Medical Electronics, B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore 560019, India Department of Podiatry, Karnataka Institute of Endocrinology and Research, Bangalore 560019, India Medical Equipment Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia Medical Thermography Service, Neurology Department, Hospital das Clínicas, Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo 01246-903, Brazil Correspondence: sudhagrr@gmail.com Abstract: (1) Background: This cross-sectional study aims to highlight the assessment and foot care practices in an advanced clinical setting, the clinical characteristics of the patients, and to understand the barriers and facilitators for effective foot care from the perspectives of healthcare practices, resources, and patients’ socioeconomic and cultural practices, and other aspects in terms of new technologies for effective foot care such as infrared thermography. (2) Methods: Clinical test data from 158 diabetic patients and a questionnaire to assess the foot care education retention rate were collected at the Karnataka Institute of Endocrinology and Research (KIER) facility. (3) Results: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) were found in 6% of the examined individuals. Male patients were more likely to have diabetes complications, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.18 (CI = 0.49–2.84). Other diabetes problems raised the likelihood of DFUs by OR 5 (CI = 1.40–17.77). The constraints include socioeconomic position, employment conditions, religious customs, time and cost, and medication non-adherence. The attitude of podiatrists and nurses, diabetic foot education, and awareness protocols and amenities at the facility were all facilitators. (4) Conclusions: Most diabetic foot complications might be avoided with foot care education, regular foot assessments as the standard of treatment, and self-care as a preventive/therapeutic strategy. Cross-Sectional Study in Bangalore, India. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929. https:// Keywords: barriers; diabetic foot assessment; foot care practices; foot complications epidemiology; facilitators; foot care education; thermography doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20115929 Academic Editor: Noël Christopher Barengo Received: 8 March 2023 Revised: 25 April 2023 Accepted: 19 May 2023 Published: 23 May 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1. Introduction According to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), India ranks second in the globe and first in Southeast Asia with around 74 million people with diabetes in 2021, accounting for one in every seven people worldwide [1]. Diabetes management costs around USD 114.4 per person per year in India [1]. The theme for World Diabetes Day 2021-23 is ‘Access to Diabetes Care’ [2], emphasizing the significance of diabetes treatment access. In India, DFUs affect 15% of patients with diabetes during their lifetime. Evidence from the published literature showed 100,000 leg amputations/year due to diabetes-related problems and an expense of approximately USD 1960 for complete treatment of DFUs. In India, 25% of the diabetic population develop DFUs, of which 50% become infected, requiring hospitalization, while 20% need amputation. DFUs contribute to approximately 80% of all non-traumatic amputations in India annually. In addition, India is the most expensive country for DFU care, as 5.7 years (68.8 months) of an average patient’s income is required to pay for complete DFU therapy. In total, 50% of DFU patients who have one amputation suffer another amputation within the next 2 years [3]. The mortality rate Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20115929 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 2 of 14 following amputation [4–6] rises from 13–40% in 1 year to 39–80% in 5 years. This scenario necessitates a routine examination of the foot for the existence of any abnormalities. The problem is to properly adopt foot care while keeping costs in mind. Diabetes-related foot care is one of the most ignored aspects of diabetes care in India. Due to social, religious, and economic compulsions, many people walk barefoot. Poverty and lack of education lead to the usage of inappropriate footwear and late presentation of foot lesions. [7]. Hence this study is an effort in closing the gap in knowledge of the barriers and facilitators specific to Indian population. Foot treatments include diabetes-related foot education, therapeutic footwear, and routine foot care. Patients’ attention to foot care and self-management is the key to success among all the aspects that might aid in these duties. A combination of healthcare personnel and patient education, multidisciplinary foot ulcer treatment, prevention, and regular monitoring can lower amputation rates by 49–85% [8]. As a result, the IDF and WHO have set aims to cut amputation rates by up to 50% [9]. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) recommendations [10] aided in the study design and methods. This study was conducted at the Karnataka Institute of Endocrinology and Research (KIER, formerly known as the Karnataka Institute of Diabetology (KID)), an autonomous institute specialized in comprehensive diabetes care with a separate Department of Podiatry to deal with diabetes-related foot complications that is fully supported by the government in Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. This study adds to prior research on diabetes-related foot complications [11–13], which focused on the clinical features of patients living with diabetes, personal attitudes, and habits, especially in industrialized nations. Diabetes is common in older people usually, and hence, diabetes-related foot complications were more common in older persons with a longer history of diabetes, a higher BMI (Body Mass Index), hypertension, diabetes-related retinopathy, and smoking history. It was more common in men than in women, and it was more common in type-2 diabetes patients [11]. According to a study conducted in the rural districts of Udupi, Karnataka by Vibha et al. [12], advanced age, low social economic status, low literacy rate, unemployment, smokeless tobacco use, sedentary lifestyle, and longer duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) were all significantly associated with diabetic foot syndrome (DFS). It was also shown that “BMI, waist circumference, clinical parameters such as blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and presence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and medication adherence, frequency of consulting physician, gender and religion” were not related to DFS. Another piece of research that is similar to ours is by Guell, Cornelia, and Nigel [13], who conducted an exploratory qualitative study in the Caribbean country of Barbados. According to the findings of the study, both healthcare practitioners and patients are more preoccupied with glycemic management, which has eclipsed the importance of foot care. The second obstacle noted by patients was opposition to new care responsibilities by healthcare providers, and the last barrier mentioned by patients was appointment/accessibility to podiatry services. Patient training sessions offered in all public care institutions for improving diabetes patients’ self-management were envisioned as possible facilitators. A holistic unbiased view of regular foot assessment, clinical characteristics and socioeconomic status, foot care education retention rate of patients, and other aspects in terms of new technologies for effective foot care such as infrared thermography is reported here. The aim is to identify barriers and enablers to optimal diabetes-related foot care. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Research Design This is a cross-sectional analytical study. The data of patients with diabetes were obtained at KIER and authorized by the Institutional Ethical Committee (Approval No: IEC-KIER/10/28.10.2017). The research was carried out over a year in 2019. All participants engaged in the study provided written informed consent. According to “Recommenda- Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 3 of 14 tions for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals” [14], the study was framed and organized for reporting. 2.2. Study Population The study included 158 diabetic patients (103 men and 55 women) with DM. Convenience non-probabilistic sampling was utilized in this study since it is part of another cohort study that involves the recording of thermal images of the foot to analyze and categorize the risk of diabetic foot problems [15,16]. Patients who came to the clinic for a routine foot exam, infection, discomfort, swelling, numbness, or wound dressing in the leg or DFU were chosen. Sample size calculation was based according to Jyothylekshmy V et al. [17], where 49.45% of the study population had peripheral neuropathy, and 41.51% had non-healing ulcers. Diabetes is responsible for 40% to 72% of all lower-extremity amputations, with diabetic foot ulcer recurrence in 52% of the study group [18] and a 51% incidence of DFS [12]. As a result, we used 40% as the prevalence of at least one diabetic foot condition that leads to ulcer and hence amputation. Precision is considered to be one-fifth of the prevalence. As a result, the sample size for a 95% confidence level is around 145. Adults over the age of 18 with type-1 or type-2 diabetes were eligible. Patients with diabetes who attend frequent foot evaluations, wound dressing, or follow-ups and who can provide informed permission demonstrating that they understand the study’s goal and methods were included. Patients without diabetes attending the center for wound treatment or presently involved in another research study were excluded. 2.3. Clinical Foot Assessment and Foot Care Management Practices The diabetes-related foot evaluation, information gathered, wound management, and treatment provided in the clinic are shown in Figure 1. This is accomplished by the diabetesrelated foot examination and foot care management strategies recommended [19–21]. A typical foot evaluation regime in the center comprises the following: monofilament test (using 10 g filament), vibration perception test (VPT) (normal—<15 volts; grade I—16 to 25 volts; grade II—26 to 50 volts), hot perception test (HPT) and cold perception test (CPT) to identify the risk of small fiber neuropathy as shown in Table 1, pedography (to measure maximum peak pressure (MPP) and pressure distribution as an image), and vascular Doppler study. Table 1. Heat perception test used to classify the risk of small fiber neuropathy (◦ C). Condition Perception Temperature Normal Hot Cold <42.4 ◦ C >19 ◦ C Mild Hot Cold 42.5–45.4 ◦ C 15–19 ◦ C Moderate Hot Cold 45.5–48 ◦ C 11–15 ◦ C Severe Hot Cold >48 ◦ C <10 ◦ C Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 4 of 14 Figure1.1.Diabetic Diabeticfoot footassessment assessmentand andwound woundmanagement/care management/careprovided providedininthe thecenter. center. Figure evaluate sensory function thecenter foot incomprises diabetes patients, we followed the IDF ATotypical footthe evaluation regime inofthe the following: monofilament guidelines [10], which recommend at least 4 sites (first, third, and fifthvolts; metatarsal test (using 10 g filament), vibration perception test (VPT) (normal—<15 grade heads, I—16 and the hallux). In India, cracked heel and flat foot is common, leading to infections in to 25 volts; grade II—26 to 50 volts), hot perception test (HPT) and cold perception test these areas as well. Therefore, we have considered 6 sites (including medial longitudinal (CPT) to identify the risk of small fiber neuropathy as shown in Table 1, pedography (to arch and the heel) for testing on each foot. The monofilament was applied perpendicular measure maximum peak pressure (MPP) and pressure distribution as an image), and vasto the skin with enough pressure to bend it into a “C” shape. The patient was in a lying cular Doppler study. position with their eyes closed, and the examiner tested each site consecutively, alternating To evaluate the sensory function of the foot in diabetes patients, we followed the IDF between the left and right foot. The results of the monofilament test were recorded in the guidelines [10], which recommend at least 4 sites (first, third, and fifth metatarsal heads, patient’s medical records and used to guide treatment and management of the patient’s and the hallux). In India, cracked heel and flat foot is common, leading to infections in diabetes-related foot conditions. these areas as well. Therefore, we have considered 6 sites (including medial longitudinal The same 6 sites were considered for the VPT, HPT, and CPT tests. The study particiarch and the heel) for testing on each foot. The monofilament was applied perpendicular pants were lying down with their eyes closed during all these tests. to the skin with enough pressure to bend it into a “C” shape. The patient was in a lying A vascular Doppler study is used to examine the risk of vascular ulcers using a position their eyes closed, PAD and the examinerarterial tested each site consecutively, portablewith Doppler. To identify (peripheral disease), the ABI (anklealternatbrachial ing between the left and right foot. The results of the monofilament test were recorded in index) is automatically measured. Table 2 depicts the risk of vascular foot ulcers as found the patient’s medical records and used to guide treatment and management of the pain the care center. tient’s diabetes-related foot conditions. The same 6 sites were considered for the VPT, HPT, and CPT tests. The study participants were lying down with their eyes closed during all these tests. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 5 of 14 Table 2. Classification of risk of vascular foot ulcer (ankle brachial index—ABI). Condition ABI Risk Classification Normal 0.9–1.2 Risk is small Definite vascular disease 0.6–0.9 Risk is moderate and depends on other risk factors Severe vascular disease Less than 0.6 Risk is very high Following the foot examination, patients take the records to a podiatrist for interpretation and guidance based on the test results. In general, the patients were recommended to take drugs for neuropathy, exercise for pain, eat a healthy diet, and undergo additional testing such as an X-ray to rule out Charcot arthropathy and osteomyelitis. If an existing corn, callus, bruise, or wound is discovered, cleaning, debriding, corn and callus removal, and correct dressing are performed, and regular follow-ups are encouraged. Patients who come in for wound care would have these done on a daily or alternate-day basis. This is repeated until the wound heals/is treated surgically or is amputated in the event of nonhealing wounds or spreading infection. Regardless of the presence of foot issues, podiatrists advise all patients to check their feet once a day for cracks, bruises, pricks, or sores. 2.4. Foot Care Education Retention Rate In addition to the regular assessments, information on the foot care education retention is also collected for this study. Diabetes education and care influence diabetes care outcomes [22], and hence foot problems. As a result, the rate of foot care education retention was determined using a questionnaire (Table 3). The clinical practice guidelines on the diabetic foot provided by the IDF in [20] were used to frame these questions. If the patient answers ‘yes’ to a question, he or she receives a score of one. A score of 1 indicates that the patient replied ‘yes’ to one of the ten questions presented. Table 3. Questionnaire for calculating foot care education retention. Q.No. Question 1. Do you inspect your foot regularly? 2. Do you wear footwear regularly while walking? 3. Do you wash your feet regularly with warm water? 4. Do you keep your foot dry? 5. Do you wear special soft shoes? 6. Do you apply moisturizer? 7. Do you go for regular foot monitoring? 8. Do you regularly check your blood sugar levels? 9. Do you cut your nails regularly? 10. Do you report the presence of blisters/corns to a foot specialist? 3. Results 3.1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients Table 4 shows the baseline characteristics of patients who attend the facility. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 6 of 14 Table 4. Baseline and diabetes-related foot characteristics. Baseline Characteristics All Subjects (Mean ± Standard Deviation) Age (years) Gender Female Male Diabetes duration (year) Type 1 DM Type 2 DM Education Diploma or no degree University degree Job profile Low Medium High No job 58 ± 12 55 103 11 ± 7 27 131 122 36 57 37 12 52 Diabetic foot characteristics Present (in %) Absent (in %) Burning Numbness Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) Heredity Trauma Deformity Foot care training History of/leading to amputation Special footwear Previous other diabetes-related complications Diabetic foot ulcer 50 50 49 43 48 51 57 52 5 13 60 95 87 40 2 98 18 82 35 65 6 94 The male preponderance seen in this investigation was consistent with prior studies [22,23]. Patients with type-2 diabetes outnumbered those with type-1 diabetes, implying that type-2 diabetes patients are more vulnerable to diabetes-related foot problems. These findings are consistent with worldwide findings [11]. Numbness is seen in around 50% of patients, according to Table 4. DPN was verified by VPT and HPT, and the frequency of DPN in our sample of 43% is consistent with earlier investigations in India [24]. Based on the questionnaire in Table 3, the foot care education retention rate indicated in Figure 2 was determined. The most favorable responses were obtained for questions 1, 2, 9, and 10. Figure 2. Foot care education retention rate among the subjects. Figure 2. Foot care education retention rate among the subjects. Only 30.5% of patients acknowledged receiving foot care instruction. This is low because a group of skilled podiatric nurses provided foot care instruction to all patients registered with the hospital. 3.2. Statistical Test Results Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 7 of 14 Only 30.5% of patients acknowledged receiving foot care instruction. This is low because a group of skilled podiatric nurses provided foot care instruction to all patients registered with the hospital. 3.2. Statistical Test Results To see if amputations and foot care education retention rates are related, we ran a chisquare independence test on the data. The statistical test result indicates that the statistical test is significant (p-value < 0.05), and so, amputations are dependent on the retention rate of foot care instruction (at 99% confidence level). Males have a higher risk of diabetes problems than females. Male patients had a greater risk of diabetes complications than female patients, with an odds ratio of 1.18 (CI = 0.49–2.84). This is supported by several additional investigations [11]. Males have a greater training retention rate than females. Male patients appear to recall lower-level foot care instruction more than female patients, with an odds ratio of 0.89 (CI = 0.40–1.96). The presence of prior diabetes problems enhanced the likelihood of DFUs with OR 5 (CI = 1.40–17.77). 3.3. Risk Classification of Patients The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) Z-card or the diabetic foot screening pocket chart [25], presented in Table 5, provides standards for health professionals to identify, assess, and treat diabetes-related foot patients earlier in the “window of presentation” between when neuropathy is diagnosed and prior to developing an ulcer. Table 5. Risk classification (extracted) from IDF Z-card. Risk Category 0 1 2 3 History of Ulceration, Amputation or Neuropathic Fracture Very High Assessment Normal Plantar Sensation Loss of Protective Sensation (LOPS) LOPS with either High Pressure or Poor Circulation (Peripheral Arterial Disease) or Structural Foot Deformities or Onychomycosis Risk Classification Low Moderate High The risk classification of our research participants is shown in Figure 3. This is based on the guidelines in the diabetic foot screening pocket chart [25] and the extract from the pocket chart Z-card. Figure 3. 3. Risk Risk patient patient classification classification of of study study participants participants as as per per the the IDF IDF Z-card. Z-card. Figure Figure 3 shows that the percentage of patients at low and moderate risk is higher than the percentage of patients at high and very high risk. This demonstrates that once a risk is identified early on, it is possible to control the progression to high and very high risk. Nonetheless, the proportion of very-high-risk patients is slightly higher than the pro- Figure 3. Risk patient classification of study participants as per the IDF Z-card. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 8 of 14 Figure 3 shows that the percentage of patients at low and moderate risk is higher than the percentage of patients at high and very high risk. This demonstrates that once a risk is identified early on, it is possible to control the progression to high and very high Figure 3 shows that the percentage of patients at low and moderate risk is higher than risk. Nonetheless, the proportion of very-high-risk patients is slightly higher than the prothe percentage of patients at high and very high risk. This demonstrates that once a risk portion of high-risk patients. This is because of the fact that once it enters risk category 3, is identified early on, it is possible to control the progression to high and very high risk. the chances of controlling further complications are slim because it is at a very advanced Nonetheless, the proportion of very-high-risk patients is slightly higher than the proportion stage. of high-risk patients. This is because of the fact that once it enters risk category 3, the chances of controlling further complications are slim because it is at a very advanced stage. 3.4. Barriers and Facilitators Despite allFacilitators examinations and wound care, there are still impediments to good foot 3.4. Barriers and careDespite that areall comparable to those the are literature [26–30]. Thetohurdles and examinations and documented wound care, in there still impediments good foot facilitators particular to diabetes-related foot care as recognized by health professionals care that are comparable to those documented in the literature [26–30]. The hurdles and [28] are also applicable to this center (See Figure 4),recognized and there are issues professionals in terms of public facilitators particular to diabetes-related foot care as by health [28] health health systems for diabetes treatment and management Another study are alsoand applicable to this center (See Figure 4), and there are issues[29]. in terms of public [20] showed thatsystems patient for knowledge attitudes, self-care, and[29]. socioeconomic level all health and health diabetes and treatment and management Another study [20] play important roles in good foot care as assessed by multidisciplinary healthcare providshowed that patient knowledge and attitudes, self-care, and socioeconomic level all play ers. However, is skewed because it only included the opinionshealthcare of healthcare profesimportant rolesthis in good foot care as assessed by multidisciplinary providers. sionals. However, this is skewed because it only included the opinions of healthcare professionals. Figure4.4.Facilitators, Facilitators,barriers barriersand andpotential potentialfacilitators. facilitators. Figure 3.4.1. Barriers Lack of Awareness Patients who visit the foot care facility for the first time are unaware of the diabetesrelated foot issues that might emerge and the associated difficulties. The importance of foot care and frequent foot examination is often overlooked. This is confirmed by the research of Soumya et al. and Saurabh et al. [31,32]. People aren’t aware that ill-fitting shoes, harsh bottoms, and going barefoot can lead to diabetes-related foot issues. Patients ignore foot examinations and only glance at their feet when there is blood on the floor, or the cut becomes painful. This is confirmed by a statistical test that shows that persons with diabetes for a longer period retain more foot care knowledge. Religious Practices Men and women throughout most of the country go barefoot to local sites and temples, as is customary with any religious activity, as recorded in Vibha et al. [12] and Guell et al. [13]. Few men and women, particularly in South India, do not wear footwear even for a month when on pilgrimage to specific temples. They consider it a religious activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 9 of 14 Fasting during Ramzan (a religious festival) contributes to poor diabetes control and, as a result, poor diabetes-related foot outcomes. Time and Cost Factor Most patients arrive early in the morning to perform fasting glucose testing, postprandial sugar tests, diet counseling, ECG checks, and then meet with a diabetes-related expert if necessary. They may also be requested to perform eye examinations and foot assessment tests. It takes two days to conduct all of the tests and meet the podiatrist. The tests for foot examination take at least 30 min for each patient. The IWGDF [10] advises foot evaluation at least once a year for diabetes patients without current difficulties and once every 6 months or 3 months for individuals at risk, depending on the risk or complication involved. Patients going from adjacent communities must factor in travel time and expense, which is a significant obstacle to efficient wound treatment. Socio-Economic Factor People in the educated middle and upper middle classes (which account for only 12% of our research group) had higher levels of awareness and foot care knowledge. When a patient’s financial situation is bad, individuals begin to ignore foot issues due to the lack of financial assistance. People are also less alert when they live in places where there is a dearth of understanding about the complications and how to prevent them. This is similar to what Agha et al. discovered in [26]. Working Environment Factor Diabetes-related foot sufferers have additional problems in the workplace. For example, a man working in the construction business had blisters on his foot as a result of contact with cement and sharp things such as steel, while another man developed web space infection as a result of continual soaking of his foot due to housekeeping activities. Figure 5 depicts the visual and infrared thermal images that were captured. (A) (B) Figure another patient’s foot Figure 5. 5. (A) (A) A A patient’s patient’sfoot footfrom fromaaconstruction constructionsite sitewith witha ablister blisterand and(B) (B) another patient’s foot from a housekeeping occupation with a web space ulcer. from a housekeeping occupation with a web space ulcer. Access to Access to Specialized Specialized Foot Foot Care Care and and Increasing Increasing Number Number of of Patients Patients In Bangalore, foot care facilities where the the same typetype of test In Bangalore, there thereare arethree threespecialized specialized foot care facilities where same of is performed. There are are no specialized centers in adjacent areas, thus individuals from a test is performed. There no specialized centers in adjacent areas, thus individuals from 100 from a 100km kmradius radiusininKarnataka Karnatakacome cometotothis thisfacility. facility.The Thefacility facilityserves serves patients patients not not just just from including Andhra Andhra Pradesh Pradesh and and Tamil Tamil Nadu. Nadu. Karnataka but also from neighboring states including The number of patients continues to rise, putting a strain on podiatrists. When an operation number of patients continues to rise, putting a strain on podiatrists. When an operato amputate a footaor toeor is scheduled, patientpatient waitingwaiting times increase, forcingforcing the facility tion to amputate foot toe is scheduled, times increase, the to limitto the number of newof patients enrolled. This isThis a major concern for patients who facility limit the number new patients enrolled. is a major concern for patients who travel significant distances (approximately 100 km from Hindupur in Andhra Pradesh and Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu) to see the podiatrist. Dependency by the Patient Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 10 of 14 travel significant distances (approximately 100 km from Hindupur in Andhra Pradesh and Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu) to see the podiatrist. Dependency by the Patient Patients with diabetes, particularly women, expect someone to accompany them to the facility. Owing to this dependency, the visit gets delayed, and hence, the wound becomes infected. This further causes delay in the therapeutic procedure. Similarly, patients with limited mobility also expect a member of their family to accompany them to the care facility. Such dependencies postpone effective treatment at the appropriate moment, resulting in poor wound care results. Eight patients had arrived in pairs. Three of the pairings were husband and wife, while the fourth was a mother and son. Communication Gap In total, 75% of patients see both a diabetes specialist and a foot care specialist and receive medical prescriptions from both. When the foot care professional instructs the patient to discontinue the drug after a certain length of use, some individuals misinterpret it for the complete set of prescriptions and stop taking all medications, including diabetes medicines. This is a serious issue since it raises blood glucose levels, causing nerve damage. Certain people quit taking their drugs abruptly before the time limit because they have produced some undesired side effects without informing their doctor. This, once again, impedes successful therapy. Few people do not finish their antibiotic course, and as a result, they develop resistance to some of the antibiotics, requiring the doctor to provide a larger dose of another potent and expensive antibiotic to combat the infection. Poor Blood Glucose Level Monitoring Many patients only check their blood glucose levels once a year, and others go even longer periods. Diabetes management failure results in poor diabetes-related foot care outcomes [28]. Despite the fact that the aforementioned hurdles impede good foot care treatment and wound management, some facilitators attempt to enhance foot care wound management at the center, as shown in the next section. 3.4.2. Facilitators The presence of highly experienced surgeons and nurses for quick action—limb salvage surgery and vascular surgery—are facilitators, as is assessment of various diabetes problems such as nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiology under one roof. Self-foot care and patient education, as documented in [30–32], are also major facilitators here, resulting in a decreased proportion of high-risk patients. Diet counseling to keep blood glucose levels under control, physiotherapy to alleviate discomfort and promote mobility, provision for purchasing specialist diabetes-related footwear within the facility, and the surgeons’ attitude and degree of care and concern for patients are also facilitators. 3.4.3. Potential Facilitators Emerging technologies [33] such as laser Doppler flowmetry, elastography, infrared thermography, plantar pressure, and pressure gradient system for DFUs, as well as other rehabilitation modalities such as off-loading devices and electrotherapy, might be useful. Also available are foot care education experts in addition to podiatric doctors to give information and instruction to patients. Furthermore, as indicated in [34], health education on diabetes by school instructors would have a significant influence on the awareness of diabetes as a disease, as well as its prevention and treatment, which would enhance the result of diabetes-related complications. During a pandemic, digital/virtual diabetes clinics [35] potentially enhance diabetes-related foot care outcomes. Monitoring self-care activities by delivering automated SMS reminders to examine the foot regularly will also be helpful. Healthcare on the go, such as mHealth [36], might be investigated because it has been demonstrated to be possible and acceptable. Identifying Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 11 of 14 patients who might serve as foot care education specialists would improve diabetes-related foot outcomes [37,38]. The authors reported using a non-invasive and non-contact screening technology, such as an infrared thermal image-based diagnostic system, as part of their larger investigation [15,16]. Infrared thermography and visual systems are used in remote monitoring systems to save time and travel, as documented in [39]. Rural foot care camps are being organized. Rehabilitation and mental therapy are provided to impacted individuals. In addition, new specialist foot care clinics with suitable resources could be established in surrounding rural regions. 3.5. Strength and Limitations of the Study This is the first population-based research on diabetes-related foot care practices in metropolitan Bengaluru, conducted in partnership with the center by an external contributor. It discusses foot examination and management strategies, as well as the prevalence of diabetes-related foot and associated problems. The study also examines the challenges and enablers of good foot care. The findings of this study indicate that excellent practices and foot care education lower the occurrence of diabetes-related foot problems. A high-sample-size investigation is required for more exact results. Recent global developments warrant a targeted investigation on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on foot care practices in order to identify further gaps and requirements that might bring more value to this research. Surprisingly, the influence of COVID-19 on the treatment and care of diabetes and its consequences described by Raman et al. [40] likewise shows comparable obstacles to those presented here. Although our study provides valuable insights into the topic, caution should be taken when applying the findings to other populations or settings. Further research is needed to confirm the results and explore potential differences across populations. 4. Conclusions According to the algorithm for “prevention of diabetes mellitus and diabetes-related foot” [41,42], our study identifies as barriers a lack of awareness, neglect of self-care and socioeconomic status, limited resources to cater to an increasing number of patients, and difficulty accessing facilities from rural areas. The presence of highly skilled surgeons and nurses with the correct mindset, as well as the center’s amenities under one roof, proved to be the most effective and supporting facilitators. An important finding from this study is that, even 20 years after Viswanathan’s [38] study, the necessity and implementation of foot care must be reaffirmed and improved to ensure a reduction in risk of deterioration. Significantly, the retention rate of foot care education is lower, which is a highly hopeful feature that underlines the importance of improving foot care education and monitoring to minimize the prevalence of DFUs. Patients who took diabetic foot education seriously had a decreased risk of lower-limb amputation evident from the statistical test results. DPN, corns or calluses, previously treated foot ulcers, diabetic retinopathy, cardiovascular disease, and diabetic nephropathy are among the numerous consequences. This is consistent with research that found a strong association [24] between knowledge score and gender, diabetes duration, employment, level of education, place of residence, having DFU, hospital stay history, and amputation history. Our analysis found 18.9% of the participants to be part of the very-high-risk group. This shows that the institute is quite good at addressing ‘at-risk’ patients such that they do not develop diabetic foot ulcers (DFU is 6%). Alternative means of assessment and remote monitoring, which need patient involvement, might be viewed as a way forward to avoid/bypass some of the hurdles stated. This study also asks for a government push to establish additional such institutes in distant locations, as well as to hold mobile awareness camps to highlight the underappreciated importance of foot care. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 12 of 14 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.B.G., U.V. and P.B.; methodology, S.B.G., U.V., J.M.S. and P.B.; software, S.B.G.; validation, J.M.S., S.M.A., C.H.C., M.L.B. and M.Y.S.; formal analysis, S.B.G. and U.V.; investigation, S.B.G., U.V. and P.B.; resources, S.B.G., U.V. and M.Y.S.; data curation, S.B.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B.G.; writing—review and editing, S.B.G., U.V., P.B., S.M.A., M.L.B. and J.M.S.; supervision, U.V. and P.B.; project administration, C.H.C. and S.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Karnataka Institute of Endocrinology and Research (Approval No: IEC-KIER/10/28.10.2017). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The datasets created or analyzed at the Karnataka Institute of Endocrinology and Research (KIER) for the current study are not publicly available because they contain information that could jeopardize ongoing research and compromise participants’ privacy or consent, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Acknowledgments: B.M.S. College of Engineering supported this study by providing an infrared camera which was pivotal for the research under the Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP-III) of the MHRD, Government of India. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th ed.; IDF: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://www. diabetesatlas.org (accessed on 20 January 2023). Word Diabetes Day (WDD). Available online: https://worlddiabetesday.org/about/theme/ (accessed on 20 January 2023). Ghosh, P.; Valia, R. Burden of Diabetic Foot Ulcers in India: Evidence Landscape from Published Literature. Value Health 2017, 20, A485. [CrossRef] Armstrong, D.G.; Wrobel, J.; Robbins, J.M. Guest editorial-are diabetes-related wounds and amputation worse than cancer? Int. Wound J. 2007, 4, 286–287. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Singh, N.; Armstrong, D.G.; Lipsky, B.A. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA 2005, 293, 217–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Reiber, G.E. Epidemiology of Foot Ulcers and Amputations in the Diabetic Foot. In Levin and O’Neal’s the Diabetic Foot, 6th ed.; Bowker, J.H., Pfeifer, M.A., Eds.; Mosby: St Louis, MO, USA, 2001; pp. 13–32. Akila, M.; Ramesh, R.S.; Kumari, M.J. Assessment of diabetic foot risk among diabetic patients in a tertiary care hospital, South India. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2021, 10, 14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Apelqvist, J.; Bakker, K.; van Houtum, W.H.; Schaper, N.C. Practical guidelines on the management and prevention of the diabetic foot. Diabetes/Metab. Res. Rev. 2008, 24 (Suppl. S1), S181–S187. [CrossRef] Bakker, K.; Apelqvist, J.; Schaper, N.C.; International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot Editorial Board. Practical guidelines on the management and prevention of the diabetic foot 2011. Diabetes/Metab. Res. Rev. 2012, 28 (Suppl. S1), 225–231. [CrossRef] International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). Available online: https://iwgdfguidelines.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/IWGDF-Guidelines-2019.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023). 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, 106–116. [CrossRef] Vibha, S.P.; Kulkarni, M.M.; Ballala, A.B.K.; Kamath, A.; Maiya, G.A. Community based study to assess the prevalence of diabetic foot syndrome and associated risk factors among people with diabetes mellitus. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2018, 18, 43. [CrossRef] Guell, C.; Unwin, N. Barriers to diabetic foot care in a developing country with a high incidence of diabetes related amputations: An exploratory qualitative interview study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2015, 15, 377. [CrossRef] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. 2018. Available online: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023). Sudha, B.G.; Umadevi, V.; Shivaram, J.M.; Sikkandar, M.Y.; Al Amoudi, A.; Chaluvanarayana, H.C. Statistical Analysis of Surface Temperature Distribution Pattern in Plantar Foot of Healthy and Diabetic Subjects Using Thermography. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP), Chennai, India, 3–5 April 2018; pp. 0219–0223. Gururajarao, S.B.; Venkatappa, U.; Shivaram, J.M.; Sikkandar, M.Y.; Al Amoudi, A. Infrared Thermography and Soft Computing for Diabetic Foot Assessment. In Machine Learning in Bio-Signal Analysis and Diagnostic Imaging; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 73–97. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 13 of 14 Abraham, S.; Jyothylekshmy, V.; Menon, A.S. Epidemiology of diabetic foot complications in a podiatry clinic of a tertiary hospital in South India. Indian J. Health Sci. Biomed. Res. 2015, 8, 48–51. [CrossRef] Viswanathan, V. The Diabetic Foot: Perspectives from Chennai, South India. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2007, 6, 34–36. [CrossRef] Boulton, A.J.; Armstrong, D.G.; Albert, S.F.; Frykberg, R.G.; Hellman, R.; Kirkman, M.S.; Lavery, L.A.; LeMaster, J.W.; Mills, J.L.; Mueller, M.J.; et al. Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: A report of the task force of the foot care interest group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care 2008, 31, 1679–1685. [CrossRef] International Diabetes Federation E-library. IDF Clinical Practice Recommendations on the Diabetic Foot 2017. Available online: https://www.idf.org/e-library/guidelines/119-idf-clinical-practice-recommendations-on-diabetic-foot-2017.html (accessed on 20 January 2023). Chellan, G.; Srikumar, S.; Varma, A.K.; Mangalanandan, T.; Sundaram, K.; Jayakumar, R.; Bal, A.; Kumar, H. Foot care practice— The key to prevent diabetic foot ulcers in India. Foot 2012, 22, 298–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Gagliardino, J.J.; Chantelot, J.-M.; Domenger, C.; Ilkova, H.; Ramachandran, A.; Kaddaha, G.; Mbanya, J.C.; Chan, J.; Aschner, P.; IDMPS Steering Committee. Diabetes education and health insurance: How they affect the quality of care provided to people with type 1 diabetes in Latin America. Data from the International Diabetes Mellitus Practices Study (IDMPS). Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2018, 147, 47–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Al-Hariri, M.T.; Al-Enazi, A.S.; Alshammari, D.M.; Bahamdan, A.S.; Al-Khtani, S.M.; Al-Abdulwahab, A.A. Descriptive study on the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the diabetic foot. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 2017, 12, 492–496. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Harrison-Blount, M.; Hashmi, F.; Nester, C.; Williams, A.E. The prevalence of foot problems in an Indian population. Diabet. Foot J. 2017, 20, 95–102. International Diabetes Federation E-library. Diabetic Foot Screening Pocket Chart. Available online: https://www.idf.org/elibrary/guidelines/124-diabetic-foot-screening-pocket-chart.html (accessed on 20 January 2023). Agha, S.A.; Usman, G.; Agha, M.A.; Anwer, S.H.; Khalid, R.; Raza, F.; Aleem, S. Influence of socio-demographic factors on knowledge and practice of proper diabetic foot care. KMUJ 2014, 6, 9–13. Pourkazemi, A.; Ghanbari, A.; Khojamli, M.; Balo, H.; Hemmati, H.; Jafaryparvar, Z.; Motamed, B. Diabetic foot care: Knowledge and practice. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2020, 20, 40. [CrossRef] Sayampanathan, A.A.; Cuttilan, A.N.; Pearce, C.J. Barriers and enablers to proper diabetic foot care amongst community dwellers in an Asian population: A qualitative study. Ann. Transl. Med. 2017, 5, 254. [CrossRef] Hills, A.P.; Misra, A.; Gill, J.M.R.; Byrne, N.M.; Soares, M.J.; Ramachandran, A.; Palaniappan, L.; Street, S.J.; Jayawardena, R.; Khunti, K.; et al. Public health and health systems: Implications for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes in south Asia. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018, 6, 992–1002. [CrossRef] Alsaleh, F.M.; AlBassam, K.S.; Alsairafi, Z.K.; Naser, A.Y. Knowledge and practice of foot self-care among patients with diabetes attending primary healthcare centres in Kuwait: A cross-sectional study. Saudi Pharm. J. 2021, 29, 506–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Soumya, S.; Ajith, A.K.; Aparna, V.K.; Deepa, V.; Prajisha, V.; Rinsha, C.; Shinumol, V. Risk of Developing Diabetic Foot, Practice and Barriers in Foot Care among Client with Type II Diabetes Mellitus. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2016, 6, 310–316. Saurabh, S.; Sarkar, S.; Selvaraj, K.; Kar, S.; Kumar, S.; Roy, G. Effectiveness of foot care education among people with type 2 diabetes in rural Puducherry, India. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 18, 106–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Lung, C.-W.; Wu, F.-L.; Liao, F.; Pu, F.; Fan, Y.; Jan, Y.-K. Emerging technologies for the prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers. J. Tissue Viability 2020, 29, 61–68. [CrossRef] Selvam, S.; Murugesan, N.; Snehalatha, C.; Nanditha, A.; Raghavan, A.; Simon, M.; Susairaj, P.; Ramachandran, A. Health education on diabetes and other non-communicable diseases imparted to teachers shows a cascading effect. A study from Southern India. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2017, 125, 20–28. [CrossRef] Phillip, M.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Close, K.L.; Danne, T.; Garg, S.K.; Heinemann, L.; Kovatchev, B.P.; Laffel, L.M.; Kovatchev, B.P.; Mohan, V.; et al. The digital/virtual diabetes clinic: The future is now—Recommendations from an international panel on diabetes digital technologies introduction. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2021, 23, 146–154. [CrossRef] Ramachandran, A.; Kumar, R.; Nanditha, A.; Raghavan, A.; Snehalatha, C.; Krishnamoorthy, S.; Joshi, P.; Tesfaye, F. mDiabetes initiative using text messages to improve lifestyle and health-seeking behaviour in India. BMJ Innov. 2018, 4, 155–162. [CrossRef] Sari, Y.; Yusuf, S.; Haryanto, H.; Sumeru, A.; Saryono, S. The barriers and facilitators of foot care practices in diabetic patients in Indonesia: A qualitative study. Nurs. Open 2021, 9, 2867–2877. [CrossRef] Viswanathan, V.; Shobhana, R.; Snehalatha, C.; Seena, R.; Ramachandran, A. Need for education on foot care in diabetic patients in India. J. Assoc. Physicians India 1999, 47, 1083–1085. Kanazawa, T.; Nakagami, G.; Goto, T.; Noguchi, H.; Oe, M.; Miyagaki, T.; Hayashi, A.; Sasaki, S.; Sanada, H. Use of smartphone attached mobile thermography assessing subclinical inflammation: A pilot study. J. Wound Care 2016, 25, 177–182. [CrossRef] Raman, R.; Rajalakshmi, R.; Surya, J.; Ramakrishnan, R.; Sivaprasad, S.; Conroy, D.; Thethi, J.P.; Mohan, V.; Netuveli, G. Impact on health and provision of healthcare services during the COVID-19 lockdown in India: A multicentre cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e043590. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5929 41. 42. 14 of 14 Nather, A.; Cao, S.; Chen, J.; Low, A. Prevention of diabetic foot complications. Singap. Med. J. 2018, 59, 291–294. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Amin, N.; Doupis, J. Diabetic foot disease: From the evaluation of the “foot at risk” to the novel diabetic ulcer treatment modalities. World J. Diabetes 2016, 7, 153–164. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.