Table 1.
Characteristic of reviewed studies
| No. | Study | STROBE score | Subject and study design | Site | History and present of ulcer | Diabetes complication | Instrument | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Practice | ||||||||
| 1. | Thenmozi and Munya (30) | 19 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 60; Cross-sectional | Teaching hospital, India | Not mentioned | – | Unclear | Inadequate: 47%; Moderate: 38%; Adequate: 15% | Poor: 43.33%; Good: 41.67%; Best: 15% |
| 2. | Mustafa et al. (29) | 11 | Not specific; n = 90; Cross-sectional | Diabetes centre, Pakistan | Not mentioned | – | Unclear | Good: 88%; Not good: 12% | – |
| 3. | Ataseven and Namoglu (34) | 21 | Not specific; n = 150; Cross-sectional | Private hospital and haemodialysis centre, Turkey | Yes | HD | Foot Care Practice Assessment Questionnaire | – | Score: 57.1 ± 12.1 |
| 4. | Mohamad and Lafi (35) | 19 | Not specific; n = 75; Cross-sectional | Public clinic, Iraq | Not mentioned | – | Developed by author | Score: 41.36 ± 5.851 | Score: 31.96 ± 5.569 |
| 5. | Batista et al. (18) | 21 | DM Type 2; n = 197; Cross-sectional | Primary health care, Brazil | No | – | Diabetes Self-Care Activities Questionnaire (DSQ) and adapted to the Brazilian culture of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) | Moderate: 15.2%; Low: 84.8% | – |
| 6. | Sulistyo et al. (31) | 17 | Not specific; n = 81; Cross-sectional | Primary health centre, Indonesia | No | Neuropathy, Perifer arteri disease, Foot deformity | Modified Diabetic Foot Care Knowledge (MDFCK) and Modified Diabetic Foot Care Behaviours (MDFCB) | Poor: 39.5%; Medium: 58%; Good: 2.5% | Poor: 86.4%; Medium: 13.6% |
| 7. | Sari et al. (33) | 24 | DM Type 2; n = 546; Cross-sectional | Primary health centre, Indonesia | Yes | Periferal neuropathy | Foot Care Knowledge (FCK) questionnaire and Modified Diabetic Foot Care Behaviours (MDFCB) | Score: 47.4 | Score: 5.33 |
| 8. | Khunkaew et al. (13) | 17 | Not specific; n = 41; A cross-sectional study | Diabetes and Foot Clinic, Thailand | Yes | – | The Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form and the VA-Diabetes Foot Care Survey | Unknowledgeable: 65.9% | – |
| 9. | Sutariya and Kharadi (19) | 18 | Not specific; n = 103; A cross-sectional study | Outpatient Surgery Department, India | yes | – | Developed by author | Good: 23%; Satisfactory: 50%; Poor: 27% | Poor: 51%; Good: 33%; Satisfactory: 15% |
| 10. | Qasim et al. (20) | 19 | Not specific; n = 150; Cross-sectional | Outpatient hospital, Pakistan | No | – | The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot and International Diabetes Federation | Good: 32.7%; Moderate: 51.3%; Poor: 16% | Good: 12.2%; Moderate: 63.3%; Poor: 24.5% |
| 11. | Pourkazemi et al. (15) | 23 | DM Type 2; n = 375; Cross-sectional study | Hospital, Iran | Yes | Not specific mentioned | Standardised questionnaires | Score: 8.63 ± 2.5 Poor: 84.8% |
Score: 7.6 ± 2.5 Poor: 49.6% |
| 12. | D’Souza et al. (32) | 26 | DM Type 2; n = 160; Cross-sectional | Public hospital, Oman | Yes | – | Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT) and Diabetes Foot Care Questionnaire (DFQ) | – | Poor: 18% Good: 82% |
| 13. | Karadağ et al. (21) | 21 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 1,030; A cross-sectional | Medical Faculty Hospital, Turkey | Yes | Neuropathy | Developed by author | – | Bad: 29.51%; Moderate: 49.61%; Good: 20.87%; |
| 14. | Ahmed et al. (22) | 22 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 150; Cross-sectional | Diabetes centre, Sudan | Not mentioned | Retinopathy, numbness and tingling, nephropathy | Direct interview by using pre- designed standardised questionnaire | Poor: 20.7%; Moderate: 24%; Good: 46.7% | Poor: 20.7%; Moderate: 36.7%; Good: 42.6% |
| 15. | Sen et al. (24) | 24 | DM Type 2; n = 140; Cross-sectional | Hospital, Vietnam | Not mentioned | – | The Nottingham Assessment of Functional Foot care (NAFF) and Foot Care Knowledge | Knowledgeable: 70% | – |
| 16. | Habbash et al. (25) | 24 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 400; A cross-sectional | Primary health center, Bahrain | Yes | – | Questionnaire adopted from a previous study (Pollock RD, Unwin NC, Connolly V) | Poor: 8.87%; Desirable: 45.28%; Good: 45.84% | Poor: 41.77%; Desirable: 27.17%; Good: 31.05% |
| 17. | Rabnawaz et al. (41) | 18 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 380; A cross-sectional | Pakistan | Not mentioned | – | Diabetic Foot Disease (DFD) | – | Good: 41.4%; Poor: 58.6% |
| 18. | Shamim et al. (28) | 13 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 150; A cross-sectional | Pakistan | Not mentioned | – | Not specific | Score 8 out of 11 | – |
| 19. | Abdulghani et al. (23) | 24 | DM Type 2; n = 360; Cross-sectional | Hospital, Saudi Arabia | Yes | Retinopathy, Toe amputation | Developed by author | Poor: 67.9%; Satisfactory: 30%; Good: 2.1% | Poor: 42.9%; Satisfactory: 47.4%; Good: 9.7% |
| 20. | Abo Deif and Abdelaziz (37) | 22 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 541; Cross-sectional | General hospital, Egypt | No | – | Developed and modified from other authors | Knowledgeable: 75.3% | Good: 33.62% |
| 21. | Magbanua and Lim-Alba (17) | 24 | DM Type 1 and 2; n = 330; Cross-sectional | Tertiery hospital, Phillipines | Yes | – | Knowledge questionnaire developed by Hasnain and colleagues (49); and the Nottingham Assessment of Functional Foot Care (NAFFC) | Good: 82.7%; Satisfactory: 13.3%; Poor: 3.9% | Good: 22.4%; Satisfactory: 71%; Poor: 6.4% |
| 22. | Samia and Tork (26) | 19 | DM Type 2; n = 500; Cross-sectional | Diabetes centre and hospital, Saudi Arabia | No | Heart disease, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, thyroid disease, anaemia, kidney disease | Unclear (only mentioned KAP questionnaire, 2017) | Unsatisfactory: 64% | Inadequate: 56.6% |