Abstract
Objective
This study is aimed at determining factors associated with the quality of life among Jordanian diabetic patients with foot ulcers.
Methods
144 consecutive patients with diabetic foot ulcers aged ≥ 18 years who were attending the diabetic foot clinic at a diabetes-specialized center were included in this study. Health-related quality of life was assessed using two self-administered questionnaires: Diabetic Foot Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF) and Short Form-8 (SF-8).
Results
Patients with diabetic foot ulcer had low mean DFS-SF score and low mean scores on physical and mental component summary scales (PCS8 and MCS8). Males had significantly higher DFS-SF score indicating better health-related quality of life than females (P value 0.038). A patient with stressful life events had significantly lower health-related quality of life using DFS-SF scale and SF-8 summary scales. Patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and patients with obesity had lower DFS-SF and PCS8 quality of life.
Conclusion
Patients with diabetic foot ulcer had low quality of life. Female gender, obesity, presence of PVD, and stressful life events were the most important factors associated with lower quality of life in patients with diabetic foot ulcer.
1. Introduction
Diabetic foot ulcers have substantial economic burden on health care systems [1]. It is estimated that 15% of all diabetic patients will develop a foot ulcer during the course of their lifetime [2]. Diabetic foot ulcers progress to major amputation in 14% to 24% of patients [3]. The five-year mortality rate is also high, reaching 50-68% among patients who undergo major lower limb amputation [4–6]. Additionally, diabetic foot ulcers markedly increase the morbidity in patients with diabetes, leading to an increase in the number of outpatient appointments and emergency room visits as well as hospitalization days with greater risks of osteomyelitis and amputation [7–10].
Diabetic foot ulcers negatively affects patients' perceived Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) due to decreased mobility and consequently the ability to perform daily activities and increasing dependence on others [11, 12]. Moreover, the perceived stress linked to wound healing or reulceration and the fear of foot amputation both increase the negative mood and lead to sleep disturbance in patients with diabetic foot ulcers [13]. Reduction of quality of life in such patients not only affects the outcome of treatment but also increases health care expenditures as a result of the frequent referring to physicians and clinical care settings [14]. Psychological comorbidity such as depression confers additional risks on diabetic patients resulting in poorer outcomes and poorer self-care. Depression in type 2 diabetes had been shown to be associated with twice the rate of first diabetic foot ulcer over 4 years of follow-up period and higher rates of amputation [15]. Moreover, depression in patients developing the first diabetic foot ulcer is associated with twofold increase of mortality over 5 years [16].
Although the impact of diabetic foot ulcers on HRQoL was studied in many countries, there is scarcity of data in Jordan on the impact of diabetes complications including diabetic foot ulcers on HRQoL. The degree by which diabetic foot ulcers impairs the quality of life is population specific. Therefore, our study was conducted to determine the impact of diabetic foot ulcers on patients' HRQoL and determine its associated factors among Jordanian patients with diabetes.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
A cross-sectional study was conducted among 144 patients with diabetic foot ulcers who attended the National Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Genetics (NCDEG) in Jordan. Patients were included in the study if their age was ≥18 years. Patients who attended the clinic twice or more during the study period of three months were interviewed during their first attendance. Pregnant or lactating women and patients with history of stroke, cancer, or mental retardation were excluded. Patients who met the inclusion criteria had been invited to participate in the study after explaining the study and its goal. All participants who agreed to participate in this study had signed the informed consent. The study was approved by the ethics committee at NCDEG.
2.2. Data Collection
A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Findings from the physical assessment were recorded in the questionnaire including presence of neuropathy symptoms, presence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD), site of the ulcer, number of ulcers, recurrence of the ulcer, duration of the ulcer, presence of previous amputation, and ulcer classification grade 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 according to the Wagner classification [17]. Other relevant data were abstracted from the medical records including diabetes complications and comorbidity, anthropometric, and biomedical data.
2.3. Physical Assessment
Vascular assessment was determined by palpating dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses, presence of intermittent claudication, and assessment of clinical signs and symptoms of ischemia (loss of hair, shine skin, pale skin, and skin temperature). Neurological assessment was performed for detecting the presence of neuropathic symptoms such as numbness, tingling pain, and burning sensation. Musculoskeletal assessment was performed for detecting the presence of previous amputation. Ulcer assessment included ulcer site, recurrence of the ulcer, ulcer duration, number of ulcers, and ulcer classification grade 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 according to the Wagner classification [17].
2.4. Diabetic Foot Scale (DFS-SF)
The DFS is a descriptive system, which provides a comprehensive measurement of the impact of diabetic foot ulcers on patients' quality of life. The DFS consists of 29 items comprising six subscales. The six domains are leisure (enjoying life), physical health, daily activities' dependence, negative emotions, concern about wound, and wound care. After we took the permissions for use of DFS-SF from Mapi Research Trust (MRT), the questionnaire was translated into Arabic using forward-backward method. The DFS-SF subscale scores were computed based on scoring conventions published elsewhere [18]. Items were aggregated within each six subscales and then transformed to a score from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life for each subscale. The final version was pilot-tested among 24 patients and the necessary changes had been made. The internal consistency of subscales (Cronbach's alpha) ranged from 0.74 to 0.83. The instrument demonstrated good constructional validity when correlated with the SF-8.
2.5. SF-8 Health Survey
The SF-8 was developed to replicate the SF-36 version 2 with one question for each health domain. The eight domains are vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, social role functioning, and mental health. Each SF-8 single-item scale and the SF-8 summary measures were scored on the same norm-based metrics as the SF-36 scales and summary measures [19]. The Arabic version which has been translated and culturally adapted in Lebanon was used [20].
2.6. Measurements and Definitions
Anthropometric measurements, including weight, height, and waist circumference, were measured while the subjects were wearing light clothing and no shoes. Body mass index (BMI) was expressed as the quotient between weight (kg) and height in meter squared. Patients were classified according to BMI following the recommendation of the World Health Organization as adopted by the American Diabetes Association [21]. Readings of systolic and diastolic blood pressures were taken while the subjects were seated and the arm was kept at the heart level, after at least five minutes of rest, using a standardized mercury sphygmomanometer. High blood pressure was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mmHg or if the patient was already on antihypertensive drugs [22]. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed if the patient had a FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) in two occasions or if the patient had a random plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) in the presence of classical symptoms of hyperglycemia or if he or she had HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Moreover, diabetes was considered to be controlled if the patient had HbA1c < 7.0% according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2011 guidelines [22]. Metabolic abnormalities were defined according to the American Diabetes Association 2011 [22]. Smoking was classified into three categories according to WHO guidelines 1998 [23, 24].
Retinopathy was diagnosed if it was documented by either the ophthalmologist or the treating physician in the medical records or if the patient had received laser treatment. Neuropathy was diagnosed if there was any of the following symptoms (numbness, tingling, or pain in the toes, feet, legs, hands, arms, and fingers) in patient's medical records or if the patient had done Nerve Conduction Study (NCS) which proves the presence of diabetic neuropathy or if the patient was receiving treatment for the above condition.
Stressful life event during the last year was assessed by life events, described as death, divorce, marital separation, illness, personal injury, imprisonment, dismissal from work, and retirement. Lower limb ischemia was defined as absent posterior tibial artery pulses with or without symptoms and signs of PVD or absent dorsalis pedis pulses with at least one symptom or sign indicating PVD. These symptoms and signs include intermittent claudication, edema, mottled skin, loss of hair, cold feet, and cyanotic feet. Osteomyelitis was diagnosed as physician diagnosis of osteomyelitis, which is based on radiological findings and or positive probe-to-bone test. Minor amputation refers to any amputation performed below the level of the ankle (forefoot, midfoot, or hindfoot). Major amputation refers to any amputation performed above the level of the ankle (below the knee or above the knee).
2.7. Statistical Analysis
Data was analyzed using the statistical program for social sciences (SPSS) version 16. Descriptive statistics used the means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables and used the frequency distribution for categorical variables. One-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the differences among group means. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to examine the net effect for each of the independent variable on quality of life scales and subscales. A P value of ≤0.05 is considered significant.
3. Results
3.1. Participants' Characteristics
A total of 144 participants aged between 24 and 90 years with a mean age (SD) of 56.8 (11.0) were included in the study. The sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics of the study population are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants (N = 144).
| Variable | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | |
| <50 | 28 (19.4) |
| 50-60 | 64 (44.4) |
| >60 | 52 (36.1) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 42 (29.2) |
| Male | 102 (70.8) |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 120 (83.3) |
| Not married | 24 (16.7) |
| Educational status | |
| ≤high school | 82 (56.9) |
| >high school | 62 (43.1) |
| Health insurance | |
| Insured | 113 (78.5) |
| Uninsured | 31 (21.5) |
| Occupational status | |
| Employed | 36 (25.0) |
| Unemployed | 108 (75.0) |
| Total family monthly income (JD) | |
| ≤500 | 84 (58.3) |
| >500 | 60 (41.7) |
| Smoking | |
| Nonsmoker | 110 (76.4) |
| Smoker | 34 (23.6) |
| Stressful events in the last year | |
| Yes | 91 (63.2) |
| No | 53 (36.8) |
| Type of diabetes mellitus | |
| Type 1 DM | 11 (7.6) |
| Type 2 DM | 133 (92.4) |
| Duration of diabetes mellitus (years) | |
| ≤10 | 43 (29.9) |
| >10 | 101 (70.1) |
| Type of treatment | |
| Insulin therapy | 16 (11.1) |
| Oral | 19 (13.2) |
| Insulin and oral | 109 (75.7) |
| Control of diabetes | |
| Controlled | 23 (16.0) |
| Uncontrolled | 121 (84.0) |
| Hypertension | |
| Yes | 108 (75.0) |
| No | 36 (25.0) |
| Dyslipidemia | |
| Yes | 112 (77.8) |
| No | 32 (22.2) |
| Peripheral neuropathy | |
| Yes | 142 (98.6) |
| No | 2 (1.4) |
| Peripheral vascular disease | |
| Yes | 42 (29.2) |
| No | 102 (70.8) |
| Retinopathy | |
| Yes | 80 (55.6) |
| No | 64 (44.4) |
| Coronary artery disease | |
| Yes | 43 (29.9) |
| No | 101 (70.1) |
| Body mass index∗∗∗∗ | |
| Obese | 83 (57.6) |
| Nonobese | 58 (40.3) |
Table 2.
Foot ulcer characteristics among diabetic patients under treatment in the National Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Genetics (N = 144).
| Variable | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Duration of foot ulcer | |
| <1 month | 56 (38.9) |
| 1-3 months | 37 (25.7) |
| >3 months | 51 (35.4) |
| Number of foot ulcers | |
| 1 ulcer | 112 (77.8) |
| ≥2 ulcers | 32 (22.2) |
| Offloading device | |
| None | 37 (25.7) |
| Felted foam padding | 47 (32.6) |
| Half shoe | 19 (13.2) |
| Removable cast walker | 34 (23.6) |
| Total contact cast | 7 (4.9) |
| Site of foot ulcer | |
| Forefoot | 115 (79.9) |
| Midfoot | 16 (11.1) |
| Hindfoot | 13 (9.0) |
| Wagner classification of foot ulcer | |
| Grade 1 | 42 (29.2) |
| Grade 2 | 57 (39.6) |
| ≥Grade 3 | 45 (31.2) |
| Soft tissue infection | |
| Yes | 71 (49.3) |
| No | 73 (50.7) |
| Osteomyelitis | |
| Yes | 52 (36.1) |
| No | 92 (63.9) |
| Recurrence of ulcer | |
| Yes | 71 (49.3) |
| No | 73 (50.7) |
| Charcot foot | |
| Yes | 19 (13.2) |
| No | 125 (86.8) |
3.2. Quality of Life and Subscales
The overall average score of DFS-SF was 42.1 (17.0). Table 3 shows the mean (SD) scores of the six subscales of DFS-SF. The mean scores were 36.7 (20.1) for leisure/enjoying life, 44.2 (22.6) for physical health, 48.2 (25.7) for dependency/daily life, 43.5 (24.6) for negative emotions, 32.7 (24.2) for worried about ulcer, 46.1 (27.8) for bothered by ulcer care, 39.3 (9.9) for physical component summary-8, and 41.9 (11.1) for mental component summary-8. The summary scores showed a lower physical component summary score than mental component summary score. Table 4 shows the mean scores of DFS-SF, PCS8, and MCS8 according to sociodemographic, clinical, and diabetic foot characteristics. Male gender, >high school level of education, no stressful events in the last year, not having PVD, absence of soft issue infection, lower Wagner classification grade, and normal body weight were significantly associated with higher DFS-SF scores, indicating better quality of life.
Table 3.
Mean scores for the Diabetic Foot Scale-Short Form and its subscales and the two summaries of Short Form-8 (physical and mental component summaries) for the quality of life of diabetic foot ulcer patients.
| Variables | QoL mean (SD) | CI (95%) |
|---|---|---|
| Leisure/enjoying life | 36.7 (20.1) | 33.4–40.0 |
| Physical health | 44.2 (22.6) | 40.5–47.9 |
| Dependency/daily life | 48.2 (25.7) | 44.0–52.4 |
| Negative emotions | 43.5 (24.6) | 39.4–47.5 |
| Worried about ulcer | 32.7 (24.2) | 28.7–36.7 |
| Bothered by ulcer care | 46.1 (27.8) | 41.5–50.7 |
| DFS-SF score | 42.1 (17.0) | 39.3–44.9 |
| PCS8 | 39.3 (9.9) | 37.6–40.9 |
| MCS8 | 41.9 (11.1) | 40.0–43.7 |
Table 4.
Mean scores of Diabetic Foot Scale-Short Form and the two component summary of Short form-8 according to sociodemographic, clinical, and diabetic foot characteristics.
| Clinical variables | DFS-SF mean (SD) | PCS8 mean (SD) | MCS8 mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 44.9 (17.5) | 40.4 (9.8) | 42.8 (11.5) |
| Female | 35.4 (14.0) | 36.5 (9.9) | 39.7 (9.9) |
| P value | 0.002∗ | 0.034∗ | 0.126 |
| Educational status | |||
| ≤high school | 39.0 (15.4) | 37.3 (9.5) | 39.9 (10.7) |
| >high school | 46.2 (18.3) | 41.9 (10.0) | 44.4 (11.2) |
| P value | 0.011∗ | 0.006∗ | 0.017∗ |
| Occupational status | |||
| Employed | 45.0 (18.4) | 42.1 (9.1) | 43.4 (11.7) |
| Unemployed | 41.1 (16.5) | 38.3 (10.1) | 41.4 (10.9) |
| P value | 0.242 | 0.049∗ | 0.351 |
| Stressful events in the last year | |||
| Yes | 36.9 (14.5) | 37.4 (9.7) | 39.7 (11.0) |
| No | 51.0 (17.6) | 42.5 (9.5) | 45.5 (10.4) |
| P value | 0.000∗ | 0.003∗ | 0.003∗ |
| Duration of foot ulcer (month) | |||
| <1 | 45.8 (17.3) | 42.1 (10.0) | 44.0 (10.6) |
| 1-3 | 39.5 (13.6) | 37.4 (10.0) | 40.2 (10.1) |
| >3 | 39.9 (18.5) | 37.5 (9.2) | 40.7 (12.1) |
| P value | 0.116 | 0.022∗ | 0.170 |
| PVD | |||
| Yes | 35.8 (13.2) | 35.9 (8.9) | 40.1 (10.7) |
| No | 44.7 (17.8) | 40.7 (10.1) | 42.6 (11.2) |
| P value | 0.004∗ | 0.009∗ | 0.235 |
| Offloading device | |||
| None | 43.9 (17.9) | 41.1 (10.5) | 40.2 (10.8) |
| Felted foam padding | 47.2 (18.4) | 40.0 (10.1) | 45.0 (11.0) |
| Half shoe | 40.7 (13.4) | 39.1 (9.8) | 40.5 (10.9) |
| Removable cast walker | 36.4 (15.0) | 37.8 (9.4) | 40.2 (12.0) |
| Total contact cast | 30.3 (5.7) | 32.9 (7.0) | 40.9 (6.2) |
| P value | 0.016∗ | 0.280 | 0.223 |
| Infection | |||
| Yes | 39.1 (15.9) | 38.6 (10.3) | 41.7 (10.7) |
| No | 45.1 (17.7) | 40.0 (9.6) | 42.0 (11.5) |
| P value | 0.035∗ | 0.400 | 0.886 |
| Amputation | |||
| Yes/minor | 39.6 (17.5) | 39.0 (8.4) | 38.8 (11.6) |
| No | 43.3 (16.7) | 39.4 (10.6) | 43.3 (10.6) |
| P value | 0.227 | 0.812 | 0.023∗ |
| Wagner classification | |||
| Grade 1 | 48.3 (18.4) | 41.0 (10.2) | 44.7 (10.1) |
| Grade 2 | 40.3 (15.6) | 39.6 (9.9) | 40.8 (10.9) |
| ≥Grade 3 | 38.6 (16.2) | 37.3 (9.6) | 41.6 (12.0) |
| P value | 0.016∗ | 0.226 | 0.149 |
| Type of diabetes | |||
| Type 1 | 45.7 (20.4) | 40.3 (10.1) | 48.5 (13.6) |
| Type 2 | 41.8 (16.8) | 39.2 (10.0) | 41.3 (10.8) |
| P value | 0.470 | 0.734 | 0.037∗ |
| BMI | |||
| Nonobese | 46.3 (17.1) | 41.6 (9.7) | 43.5 (11.1) |
| Obese | 39.5 (16.4) | 37.8 (9.9) | 40.8 (11.2) |
| P value | 0.018∗ | 0.026∗ | 0.159 |
∗ P value < 0.05.
3.3. Factors Associated with the Quality of Life of Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Table 5 shows the multivariate analysis of factors associated with the quality of life scales. In the multivariate analysis, the only factors that remained significantly associated with the quality of life were gender, stressful events, PVD, and BMI. Males had significantly higher DFS-SF score indicating better health-related quality of life than females (P value 0.038). Patient with stressful life events had significantly lower health-related quality of life using DFS-SF scale and SF-8 summary scales. Patients with PVD and patients with obesity had lower DFS-SF and PCS8 quality of life.
Table 5.
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with quality of life.
| Variables | Quality of life | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DFS-SF | SF-8 | ||
| PCS8 | MCS8 | ||
| Gender | |||
| Male | 44.9 (17.5) | 40.4 (9.8) | 42.8 (11.5) |
| Female | 35.4 (14.0) | 36.5 (9.9) | 39.7 (9.9) |
| P value | 0.038∗ | 0.146 | 0.306 |
| Stressful life events | |||
| Yes | 36.9 (14.5) | 37.4 (9.7) | 39.7 (11.0) |
| No | 51.0 (17.6) | 42.5 (9.5) | 45.5 (10.4) |
| P value | 0.000∗ | 0.013∗ | 0.006∗ |
| PVD | |||
| Yes | 35.8 (13.2) | 35.9 (8.9) | 40.1 (10.7) |
| No | 44.7 (17.8) | 40.7 (10.1) | 42.6 (11.2) |
| P value | 0.004∗ | 0.016∗ | 0.147 |
| BMI | |||
| Nonobese | 46.3 (17.1) | 41.6 (9.7) | 43.5 (11.1) |
| Obese | 39.5 (16.4) | 37.8 (9.9) | 40.8 (11.2) |
| P value | 0.024∗ | 0.036∗ | 0.695 |
∗ P value < 0.05.
Table 6 shows the multivariate analysis of factors associated with the quality of life subscales. Females scored significantly lower than males on the physical health and negative emotions DSF-SF subscales than men. Patients who had an educational level of more than high school were more worried about ulcer. Those with family income more than 500 JDs scored higher on physical health subscale. Scores in the most of DFS-SF subscales were lower in patients who had stressful life events in the last year. Patients who did not have ischemic foot ulcer had a better health-related quality of life on dependency/daily life and worried about ulcer subscales. Presence of retinopathy was associated with poor quality of life on leisure/enjoying life as well as dependency subscales. Patients with obesity scored significantly lower on bothered by ulcer care subscale.
Table 6.
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with quality of life subscales.
| Clinical variables | Leisure/enjoying life mean (SD) | Physical health mean (SD) | Dependency/daily life mean (SD) | Negative emotion mean (SD) | Worried about ulcer mean (SD) | Bothered by ulcer care mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 38.8 (20.6) | 48.3 (22.1) | 50.5 (26.6) | 41.4 (24.5) | 47.8 (28.0) | 47.1 (27.6) |
| Female | 31.4 (18.0) | 34.3 (20.9) | 42.6 (22.7) | 28.8 (16.5) | 33.0 (20.8) | 43.8 (28.5) |
| P value | 0.187 | 0.023∗ | 0.705 | 0.015∗ | 0.796 | 0.937 |
| Educational status | ||||||
| ≤high school | 36.8 (20.5) | 39.1 (21.2) | 45.1 (23.7) | 39.0 (22.0) | 27.5 (20.7) | 45.3 (27.0) |
| >high school | 36.5 (19.7) | 50.9 (22.8) | 52.3 (27.8) | 49.4 (26.7) | 39.5 (26.9) | 47.2 (29.0) |
| P value | 0.110 | 0.181 | 0.769 | 0.338 | 0.024∗ | 0.554 |
| Family income | ||||||
| ≤500 | 36.9 (18.4) | 40.1 (22.6) | 46.6 (23.8) | 40.6 (23.9) | 30.7 (22.1) | 46.1 (28.0) |
| >500 | 36.3 (22.4) | 50.0 (21.4) | 50.4 (28.3) | 47.5 (25.1) | 35.5 (26.9) | 46.1 (27.7) |
| P value | 0.842 | 0.033∗ | 0.472 | 0.332 | 0.562 | 0.909 |
| Stressful events | ||||||
| Yes | 32.0 (19.2) | 37.1 (21.5) | 42.7 (24.0) | 38.0 (22.2) | 29.5 (21.8) | 41.4 (27.2) |
| No | 44.7 (19.1) | 56.3 (19.2) | 57.5 (26.1) | 52.8 (25.9) | 38.2 (27.2) | 54.1 (27.2) |
| P value | 0.000∗ | 0.000∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.009∗ | 0.261 | 0.008∗ |
| PVD | ||||||
| Yes | 33.8 (17.1) | 40.6 (18.0) | 37.1 (21.3) | 38.2 (22.8) | 24.7 (21.4) | 38.4 (26.3) |
| No | 37.8 (21.2) | 45.7 (24.1) | 52.7 (26.1) | 45.6 (25.1) | 36.0 (24.6) | 49.3 (27.9) |
| P value | 0.460 | 0.573 | 0.005∗ | 0.088 | 0.018∗ | 0.118 |
| Retinopathy | ||||||
| Yes | 34.1 (17.7) | 43.4 (21.1) | 42.6 (24.3) | 42.2 (24.7) | 32.9 (24.2) | 44.7 (26.5) |
| No | 39.9 (22.5) | 45.2 (24.5) | 55.2 (25.9) | 45.1 (24.6) | 32.4 (24.5) | 47.9 (29.4) |
| P value | 0.031∗ | 0.327 | 0.007∗ | 0.605 | 0.323 | 0.886 |
| BMI | ||||||
| Nonobese | 39.7 (17.7) | 47.8 (23.7) | 52.5 (27.5) | 47.4 (23.7) | 35.9 (24.1) | 54.0 (27.6) |
| Obese | 34.4 (21.5) | 41.8 (22.0) | 46.0 (24.2) | 40.7 (24.7) | 30.9 (24.5) | 41.5 (26.9) |
| P value | 0.401 | 0.346 | 0.652 | 0.275 | 0.421 | 0.022∗ |
∗ P value < 0.05.
4. Discussion
In this study, diabetic patients with foot ulcers had low DFS-SF, PCS8, and MCS8 scores. Diabetic foot ulcers have been shown to have a high impact on the quality of life. Ashford's study reported that families of diabetic foot ulcers patients were unable to do certain procedures, which led to family-related problems. Such problems included wound dressing, moderate mobility reduction shopping, and taking a shower and had a negative impact on patients' quality of life [25]. Goodridge et al. showed that patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a poorer physical quality of life than patients with unhealed ulcers [26]. Recent US and UK studies showed that diabetic foot ulcers adversely affect the quality of life of patients [27, 28].
Our data showed that females had significantly lower health-related quality of life than males. Women are likely to be more concerned about their health conditions and their impact on family environment than men, particularly among housewives. In agreement with our finding, most previous studies had shown that males had better health than females. Lebanese women had a lower quality of life than Lebanese men [20]. Canadian men had markedly higher scores than women in all SF-36 Health Survey domains [29]. Similarly, US men fared better than women in all SF-36 domains [30]. Except for the general health domain, British male scores were also higher than females [31]. Other studies also showed that women had a poorer quality of life [32].
PVD and diabetes often entail neuropathy, foot ulcer, increased risk of developing gangrene, ischemia, and amputation to lower extremities. Impaired lower extremity functioning is considered an important predictor of future disability and may lead to poorer quality of life [33–35]. In agreement with previous studies, patients with PVD had lower quality of life than patients without PVD; Dolan et al. found that subjects with PAD and diabetes have poorer lower extremity function than those with PAD alone [33]; Siersma et al. also reported that factors such as limb threatening ischemia, inability to stand or walk independently, and ulcer size were the most important contributors to health-related quality of life [34]. In addition, Lloyd et al. also proved that PVD in diabetic patients was significantly associated with lower physical and social functioning scale scores [35].
Our data also showed that obese diabetic patients with foot ulcers had significantly lower quality of life than nonobese diabetic patients with foot ulcers. Consistent with our result, Redekop et al.'s study also showed that obesity was related to poorer quality of life in T2DM patients [36].
Our study showed that patients with stressful life events scored lower than those without stressful life events on health-related quality of life. Stressful life events, linked to wound healing, will eventually mark an increase in the negative mood and result in improper sleep patterns [37]. Recently, many studies have illustrated the mechanism of stress in slowing the healing rate of acute and chronic ulcers, which leads to long-term ulcer care and this creates further burden, pressure, and low quality of life.
5. Conclusion
Patients with diabetic foot ulcer had low quality of life. Female gender, obesity, presence of PVD, and stressful life events were the most important factors associated with lower quality of life in patients with diabetic foot ulcer. Further studies are needed to assess all variables that may impact the quality of life in patients with diabetes in general and diabetic foot ulcer in particular.
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Reiber G. E. The epidemiology of diabetic foot problems. Diabetic Medicine. 1996;13:S6–S11. doi: 10.1002/dme.1996.13.s1.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Leone S., Pascale R., Vitale M., Esposito S. Epidemiology of diabetic foot. Le Infezioni in Medicina. 2012;20(Supplement 1):8–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ramsey N. K., Blough D., McCulloch D. K., Sandhu N., Reiber G. E., Wagner E. H. Incidence, outcomes, and cost of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(3):382–387. doi: 10.2337/diacare.22.3.382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Young M. J., McCardle J. E., Randall L. E., Barclay J. I. Improved survival of diabetic foot ulcer patients 1995-2008: possible impact of aggressive cardiovascular risk management. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(11):2143–2147. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Armstrong D. G., Wrobel J., Robbins J. M. Guest editorial: are diabetes related wounds and amputations worse than cancer? International Wound Journal. 2007;4(4):286–287. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00392.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Shahbazian H., Yazdanpanah L., Latifi S. M. Risk assessment of patients with diabetes for foot ulcers according to risk classification consensus of International Working Group on Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013;29(3):730–734. doi: 10.12669/pjms.293.3473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Aalaa M., Malazy O. T., Sanjari M., Peimani M., Mohajeri-Tehrani M. Nurses’ role in diabetic foot prevention and care; a review. Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders. 2012;11(1):p. 24. doi: 10.1186/2251-6581-11-24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Iraj B., Khorvash F., Ebneshahidi A., Askari G. Prevention of diabetic foot ulcer. International Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013;4(3):373–376. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fard A. S., Esmaelzadeh M., Larijani B. Assessment and treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2007;61(11):1931–1938. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01534.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Snyder R. J., Hanft J. R. Diabetic foot ulcers-effects on QOL, costs, and mortality and the role of standard wound care and advanced-care therapies. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2009;55(11):28–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kinmond K., McGee P., Gough S., Ashford R. Loss of self: a psychosocial study of the quality of life of adults with diabetic foot ulceration. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2003;13(1):6–16. doi: 10.1016/S0965-206X(03)80025-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ragnarson Tennvall G., Apelqvist J. Health-economic consequences of diabetic foot lesions. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2004;39:S132–S139. doi: 10.1086/383275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Itani H., Gandoura N., Ahmed T., Ahmad R. Impact of psychological stress on wound healing for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The Diabetic Foot Journal Middle East. 2015;1:18–22. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Apelqvist J., Larsson J. What is the most effective way to reduce incidence of amputation in the diabetic foot? Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. 2000;16(S1) Supplement 1:S75–S83. doi: 10.1002/1520-7560(200009/10)16:1+<::aid-dmrr139>3.0.co;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Williams L. H., Rutter C. M., Katon W. J., et al. Depression and incident diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective cohort study. The American Journal of Medicine. 2010;123(8):748–754.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.01.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Winkley K., Sallis H., Kariyawasam D., et al. Five-year follow-up of a cohort of people with their first diabetic foot ulcer: the persistent effect of depression on mortality. Diabetologia. 2012;55(2):303–310. doi: 10.1007/s00125-011-2359-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot. The Netherlands: International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bann C. M., Fehnel S. E., Gagnon D. D. Development and validation of the diabetic foot ulcer scale-short form (DFS-SF) PharmacoEconomics. 2003;21(17):1277–1290. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200321170-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ware J., Kosinski M., Dewey J., Gandek B. How to Score and Interpret Single-ItemHealth Status Measures: A Manual for Users of the SF-8 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI, USA: QualityMetric; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sabbah I., Drouby N., Sabbah S., Retel-Rude N., Mercier M. Quality of life in rural and urban populations in Lebanon using SF-36 health survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):p. 30. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.World Health Organization (WHO) Physical status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry: Report of WHO Expert Committee. Geneva: WHO; 1995. (Technical Report Series 854). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes 2011. Diabetes Care. 2011;30(Supp 1):S4–S40. [Google Scholar]
- 23.World Health Organization. Guideline for Controlling and Monitoring: The Tobacco Epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 24.American Diabetes Association. Dyslipidemia management in adult with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(Supplement 1):68–71. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ashford R. L., McGee P., Kinmond K. Perception of quality of life by patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The Diabetic Foot Journal. 2000;3:150–155. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Goodridge D., Trepman E., Sloan J., et al. Quality of life of adults with unhealed and healed diabetic foot ulcers. Foot & Ankle International. 2006;27(4):274–280. doi: 10.1177/107110070602700408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ragnarson Tennvall G., Apelqvist J. Health-related quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus and foot ulcers. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. 2000;14(5):235–241. doi: 10.1016/S1056-8727(00)00133-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Winkley K., Stahl D., Chalder T., Edmonds M. E., Ismail K. Quality of life in people with their first diabetic foot ulcer a prospective cohort study. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2009;99(5):406–414. doi: 10.7547/0990406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hopman W. M., Towheed T., Anastassiades T., et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. CMAJ. 2000;163(3):265–271. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ware J. E., Jr. The Health Institute. New England Center; 1997. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Jenkinson C., Stewart-Brown S., Petersen S., Paice C. Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999;53(1):46–50. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.1.46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.P1 G.-C., Sendino A. R., Banegas J. R., López-García E., Rodríguez-Artalejo F. Differences in quality of life between women and men in the older population of Spain. Social Science & Medicine. 2005;60(6):1229–1240. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Dolan N., Liu K., Criqui M. H., et al. Peripheral artery disease, diabetes, and reduced lower extremity functioning. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(1):113–120. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.1.113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Siersma V., Thorsen H., Holstein P. E., et al. Importance of factors determining the low health-related quality of life in people presenting with a diabetic foot ulcer: the Eurodiale study. Diabetic Medicine. 2013;30(11):1382–1387. doi: 10.1111/dme.12254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lloyd A., Sawyer W., Hopkinson P. Impact of long-term complications on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes not using insulin. Value in Health. 2001;4(5):392–400. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.45029.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Redekop W. K., Koopmanschap M. A., Stolk R. P., Rutten G. E., Wolffenbuttel B. H., Niessen L. W. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in Dutch patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):458–463. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Graham J. E., Streitel K. L. Sleep quality and acute pain severity among young adults with and without chronic pain: the role of biobehavioral factors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2014;33(5):335–345. doi: 10.1007/s10865-010-9263-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.