Table 2. Results of the Delphi exercise for important features of retail footwear for women with RA.
| Footwear Item Category | Item | Median score (30–70 IPR)A | DIA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
General Shoe Fit |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should be appropriately sized, with adequate length and width (2) | 9 (9–9) | 0 | |
| Shoes should be deep enough to accommodate an orthoses/insert (2) | 8 (7–8.8) | 0.26 | |
| Shoes should not have seams over pressure areas or deformities (2) | 9 (7.2–9) | 0.21 | |
| Shoes should avoid pressure points in the foot (2) | 9 (8–9) | 0.11 | |
| Shoe shape should be relevant to foot shape (2) | 8 (7–9) | 0.29 | |
| Agreed Not Important (round*) | |||
| Shoes should be one size larger than required (2) | 2.0 (2–4) | 0.29 | |
| Did not reach consensus | |||
| Women with RA should be professionally fitted for their footwear | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
| Women should own two pairs of shoes which can be alternated | 5.5 (5–7) | 0.64 | |
|
Aesthetic |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should be aesthetically pleasing (2) | 7 (7–8) | 0.18 | |
| There should be a range of choice in styles available (2) | 8 (7–8.8) | 0.26 | |
| There should be a range of choice in colours available (2) | 8 (7–8) | 0.14 | |
| Shoes should be deemed satisfactory by the owner (2) | 9 (8–9) | 0.11 | |
| Shoes should look feminine (2) | 7 (6–7) | 0.18 | |
| Shoes should not cause self-consciousness (2) | 8 (8–9) | 0.14 | |
| Shoes should be appropriate for the social occasion (2) | 7 (6.2–8) | 0.33 | |
| Did not reach consensus | |||
| Shoe comfort should be preferable to aesthetic | 6.0 (5–7) | 0.25 | |
|
Specific Features -Rearfoot/Heel |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should have a sturdy rearfoot (2) | 7 (6–8) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should have a heel height of no greater than 3 cm (1.5 inches) (2) | 7 (6–8) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should have a cushioned heel (2) | 7 (6–7) | 0.18 | |
| Shoes should have a broad heel base (2) | 7 (6–8) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should contain a heel counter which conforms to the geometry of the calcaneus (2) | 7 (5–8) | 0.56 | |
| Did not reach consensus | |||
| Shoes should not contain a sling back | 6.0 (5–7) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should contain a heel stability cup | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should have a stiff heel counter | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
|
Specific Features -midfoot/forefoot |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should contain adequate midfoot support (2) | 7 (6.2–8) | 0.39 | |
| Shoes should have a wide toe box (2) | 8 (7–8) | 0.89 | |
| Shoes should have a deep toe box (2) | 7 (6–8) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should contain forefoot to rearfoot cushioning (2) | 7 (6–7.1) | 0.5 | |
| Shoes should be able to accommodate the toes (2) | 8 (8–9) | 0.77 | |
| Shoes should have longitudinal arch support (3) | 7.0 (6–7) | 0.18 | |
| Shoes should contain metatarsal support (3) | 7.0 (6–7) | 0.18 | |
| Did not reach Consensus | |||
| Shoes should contain a semi-rigid shank | 6.0 (6–6) | 0 | |
| Shoes should have a rocker in metatarsal areas | 6.0 (5–6) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should be adjustable in metatarsal areas | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should have a round toe box | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
|
Specific Features -Outsole/Upper/Insole |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should have an outsole which is textured and non-slip (2) | 8 (7–8) | 0.89 | |
| Shoes should have a soft accommodative upper (2) | 7 (6–8) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should have an upper which is conformable (2) | 8 (8–9) | 0.77 | |
| Shoes should contain an insole which is removable (2) | 8 (6–9) | 0.43 | |
| Did not reach Consensus | |||
| Shoes should have a thick outsole | 6.0 (5–6) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should have a leather upper | 5.0 (4–5) | 0.42 | |
| Shoes should contain a supportive inlay | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
|
Specific Features-Fixation |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should be well secured (2) | 8 (7–9) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should be easy to put on and take off (2) | 8 (8–9) | 0.77 | |
| Shoes should have fastenings which are adjustable (2) | 8 (6–9) | 0.43 | |
| Agreed Not Important (round*) | |||
| Shoes should be slip on (2) | 3.0 (2–5) | 0.29 | |
| Did not reach Consensus | |||
| Shoes should have Velcro fastenings | 5.0 (5–5) | 0 | |
| Shoes should be lace up | 5.0 (4–5) | 0.42 | |
| Shoes should have Velcro fastenings | 5.0 (5–5) | 0 | |
|
Specific Features -Other |
Agreed Important (round*) | ||
| Shoes should provide adequate shock absorption (2) | 8 (6–8) | 0.56 | |
| Shoes should be activity appropriate (2) | 8 (8–9) | 0.77 | |
| Shoes should be made of breathable material (2) | 7 (5.2–8) | 0.30 | |
| Shoes should be suitable for the weather conditions (warm in winter, cool in summer) (2) | 8 (7–9) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should be lightweight (2) | 7 (6–8) | 0.37 | |
| Shoes should be deemed comfortable by the owner (2) | 9 (9–9) | 0 | |
| Shoes should be affordable (2) | 9 (8–9) | 0.11 | |
| Did not reach consensus | |||
| Shoes should be made from soft fabric | 6.0 (5–6) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should be a boot style if additional support is required | 6.0 (5–6) | 0.25 | |
| Shoes should contain features found in trainers/running shoes | 6.0 (6–7) | 0.25 | |
AA RAND/UCLA disagreement index of > 1 indicates panel disagreement, a RAND/UCLA DI value of < 1 indicates panel agreement
*- round item reached consensus
Median scores are representative of items scored on a 9 point scale, with 1 indicating an item was ‘not at all important’, and 9 indicating an item was ‘absolutely essential’.
Items were accepted with a median score between 7 and 9 and a RAND/UCLA DI value of <1, Items were rejected with a median score between 1 and 3 and a RAND/UCLA DI value of <1. Items were considered lacking consensus with a mean value between 4 and 6 and/or a RAND/UCLA DI value of >1
IPR–interpercentile range