Adherence to MGF
The primary aim of this study was to determine if patient adherence to MGF improved following in-shoe pressure analysis and modification of MGF. The results of this study indicated that self-reported adherence inside the home increased for 46.7% of participants, decreased for 6.6%, and stayed the same for 46.7%. However, the number of participants who reported ≥ 80% adherence to MGF inside the home was low, increasing from 13.3% at Week 0 to 20.0% at Week 4. Adherence outside the home increased for 33.3% of participants and stayed the same for 66.7%. However, baseline adherence outside the home was high compared to previous research, with 53.3% (n = 8) participants reporting ≥ 80% adherence, compared to 26% (n = 13) reported by Macfarlane and Jensen (13).
When examining the number of participants who reported ≥ 80% adherence to MGF outside the home, this increased from n = 8 (53.3%) at Week 0 to n = 12 (80.0%) at Week 4, which indicates a clinically significant improvement in adherence for n = 4 participants. In contrast, while adherence inside the home improved for n = 7 participants (46.7%), adherence only increased to a clinically significant level (≥ 80%) for n = 1 participant. The finding of low adherence to MGF inside the home compared to outside the home is consistent with the results of previous studies. Macfarlane and Jensen (13) reported that 12% (n = 6) of participants wore prescribed MGF > 80% of the time at home compared to 26% (n = 13) outside the home, while Waaijman et al. (12) reported mean adherence of 61% at home compared to 87% adherence away from home for 107 participants with previous DFU, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The challenge of comparing the findings of the current study with previous research is that adherence is not frequently reported separately for indoor and outdoor use, however, this is important given the significant difference in reported adherence between these two conditions (24).
We are not aware of any previous research investigating in-shoe pressure analysis as a tool to improve patient adherence to MGF. Bus et al. (10) and Abbott et al. (25) reported patient adherence following in-shoe pressure analysis, however, the study aims and application of in-shoe pressure analysis were different from the current study. Bus and colleagues sought to blind participants to the intervention by evaluating the results of pressure analysis and modifying footwear out of view, which prevented bias from differences in how groups perceived treatment. The findings of the current study indicate that communicating the results of in-shoe pressure analysis and demonstrating the offloading capacity of MGF may improve adherence. However, a larger study incorporating an objective and accurate measure of adherence (such as insole sensors) is needed to explore this further.
Abbott et al. (25) studied patient adherence to the use of an intelligent insole inserted into MGF, which provided an alert via smartwatch when excessive plantar pressures were detected and prompted participants to modify weight-bearing behaviour. Abbott and colleagues reported that 69% of participants were ‘good compliers’ (defined as a mean of ≥ 4.5 hours wear per day). When analysing adherence between the intervention group and control group (which received no alerts), there was no difference in the percentage of ‘good compliers’ between groups (both 69%). Najafi et al. (26) conducted a study assessing adherence to the use of the same intelligent insole system as Abbott et al. and found that adherence increased for those participants who received a high number of alerts per hour compared to those who received a low number of alerts, which would suggest that the proactive requirements of an intelligent insole system do not adversely impact adherence. However, while the current study assessed the impact of a single session of in-shoe pressure analysis, the insole system assessed by Abbott and colleagues and Najafi et al. (26) consisted of a continuous monitoring system with limited capacity to compare the findings to the present study.
Patient understanding of medical grade footwear
The potential for in-shoe pressure analysis to modify patient understanding of the role of high pressure areas and improve adherence was suggested by Najafi et al. (27). However, Najafi and colleagues were referring specifically to an intelligent insole system providing continuous feedback. The current study sought to investigate the impact of a single session of in-shoe pressure analysis on patient understanding. For the Pre-assessment Questionnaire B and Post-assessment questionnaire, the mean score for Statement 3 increased from 3.9 to 4.5 and the difference in scores was statistically significant (p < 0.05). As Statement 3 referred specifically to using MGF > 80% of the time to avoid ulceration, this indicates that the intervention may have increased participants’ understanding of the need to wear MGF most of the time. However, the scores for the remainder of the statements did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference as a result of the intervention. Patient understanding at baseline was already of a high level (4 out of 5), which may explain the lack of statistically significant improvement in scores. As participants had already been fitted with MGF and educated on use prior to enrolment in the study, their level of understanding at study entry was already high. Furthermore, it is possible that the questionnaire was not sensitive to detecting change in patient understanding, and further studies are required to develop a validated tool to measure patient understanding of MGF.
The area in which participants had the poorest understanding was use of slippers or other house shoes at home, which is consistent with previous studies (28, 29). There was minimal change in responses for this statement before and after a single session of pressure analysis, which is reflected in the minimal change in adherence inside the home and the persistence of themes related to non-adherence at home over the four weeks. The themes identified in this study are consistent with the findings of Paton and colleagues (28) who reported that participants viewed the home as a safe and familiar place where there was a low risk of injury. Participants for the current study also expressed a feeling of safety at home where they reported ‘sitting or keeping their feet up’. Further studies exploring methods of improving patient understanding of the dangers of inappropriate footwear use at home, such as the continuous monitoring insole system with smartwatch employed by Abbott et al. (25), may be beneficial. However, this would rely upon patient compliance with transferring of insoles between shoes where alternative footwear is worn at home. A barefoot pressure platform, as utilised by Gurney and colleagues (30), could be employed in future studies to demonstrate the dangers of barefoot walking and may assist in modifying patient behaviour towards MGF use inside the home.
Response rate and patient experience
The response rate for the current study was high, with all 26 patients who were informed of the study expressing interest in learning more, of which 22 agreed to participate. The positive patient engagement with in-shoe pressure analysis was reflected in participant responses to the Week 0–1 Telephone Questionnaire, which demonstrated that 100% of participants felt the intervention was worthwhile. The dominant reasons provided by participants for why they found attending worthwhile was the ‘demonstration of pressure points’ (n = 4) and ‘improved offloading of pressure points’ (n = 3). This suggests that participants understood the purpose of in-shoe pressure analysis, were interested to learn more about the offloading properties of their footwear and valued having their footwear optimised.
Limitations of the study
A limitation of the current study was the subjective measure of self-reported adherence. While Bus et al. (10) and Abbott et al. (25) utilised objective methods of measuring adherence, adherence for the current study was measured subjectively and relied upon participants’ recollection of adherence over the previous four weeks. Therefore, the findings for patient adherence should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias associated with self-reported adherence to MGF (24, 26). A further limitation of this study was that plantar pressures were measured in a controlled clinical setting that may not reflect the cumulative forces a patient is subject to over a day (27, 31). Importantly, other forces such as pressure from the dorsum of the shoe and shear pressure were not able to be captured with the in-shoe pressure technology utilised, however, they may contribute to ulcer formation (32).
Limitations of sample size and sampling method also weaken the findings of this study. The sample size was small and was not calculated to determine statistical significance, therefore, the statistical significance of the results related to patient adherence is not known. The sample size for the pilot and final study combined (n = 18) was smaller than the anticipated n = 20. Contributing to this was the delay in supply of MGF to patients within SLHD related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, all 15 participants included in the final study were male, therefore, the findings of this study reflect an entirely male sample and may not be generalisable to female patients.
The questionnaires used for this study were created for the purpose of this study, therefore, the reliability and validity of these questionnaires is unknown. A pilot study was undertaken to assess participant comprehension and acceptability of the questionnaires. However, as these questionnaires were new, there were no previous studies to directly compare the findings to, limiting the conclusions that could be drawn, particularly regarding patient understanding of MGF. Quantifying changes in patient understanding through analysing differences in Likert score responses may not reflect a true change in understanding, and the clinical significance of the change in scores for patient understanding is unknown. The Week 0 questionnaires were delivered verbally by the investigator who conducted the pressure analysis and orthotic modifications. Despite questionnaires being delivered in a standardised format for all participants, there is the possibility of interviewer bias in how participant responses to short answer questions were noted down and at times summarised.
Recommendations for clinical practice
This study confirmed previous research findings that have demonstrated poor adherence to MGF inside the home (12, 13, 28, 29, 33). In light of the preference of patients to use slippers or simple house shoes at home, the provision of a medical grade slipper in addition to outdoor MGF may increase adherence inside the home, which was also recommended by Paton et al. (28). However, the inevitable challenge with such footwear is the need to offload areas at risk of DFU, which may necessitate footwear features not compatible with a slipper design (34). Ultimately, an informed discussion between footwear supplier and patient in which patient goals are addressed and any potential compromise reached may result in the best outcomes for the patient.