Keywords
Diabetic foot ulcer; wound healing; emotions; psychology; psychosocial impact; psychological intervention; scoping review
This article is included in the Public and Patient Involvement collection.
Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a major complication of diabetes and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Psychological factors are believed to play a role in wound healing, but it remains uncertain if psychological interventions can help individuals with an active DFU, or a history of DFUs, to achieve complete or improved wound healing or prevent recurrence.
The objective of the proposed scoping review is to investigate the emotional consequences/burden of living with DFU and to examine how psychosocial factors may impact progression and management of ulcerations.
This review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will guide the reporting of results.
While factors such as stress, depression, social support, and adherence to treatment have been identified as variables that may negatively affect DFU healing, there is a need for a greater understanding of how psychological and behavioural variables such as these may influence ulcer incidence, healing and recurrence in people with diabetes. This review will comprise of a broad and systematically mapped synthesis of the identified data. Findings will be used to provide a better understanding of the bi-directional relationship between DFU and psychological variables and will provide direction for the development or adaptation of a tailored psychological intervention that will aim to optimise wellbeing and improve outcomes for individuals with DFU.
Diabetic foot ulcer; wound healing; emotions; psychology; psychosocial impact; psychological intervention; scoping review
This article has been updated following feedback from reviewers. The introduction now focuses on complex wounds and the many challenges associated with them, rather than providing a background on diabetes, and the discussion now contains a more comprehensive overview of previous research that has been conducted in the area.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Anas Ababneh
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Raquel Marques
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Rebecca M Crocker
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Loretta Vileikyte
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Gustav Jarl
Living with a complex wound presents numerous multifaceted challenges that significantly impact an individual's physical, psychological, and socio-economic well-being (Gouin & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2011). Characterized by their prolonged healing process, susceptibility to infection, and need for specialized care, complex wounds demand continuous medical attention and meticulous self-management (Harlin et al., 2009). As they can cause significant pain, restricted mobility, and a diminished ability to perform daily activities, a decline in overall physical and mental health is common (Upton, 2014). Individuals may also withdraw from activities they previously enjoyed due to mobility issues or the stigma associated with visible wounds, so social isolation may occur. Furthermore, the financial strain caused by potential loss of employment and the cost of continuous medical care can add to the overall burden of managing a complex wound, intensifying the distress experienced by patients and their families. When diabetes is present all of these challenges are further exacerbated as the individual is then also predisposed to prolonged wound healing due to a complex pathophysiology involving vascular, neuropathic, immune, and biochemical components (Spampinato et al., 2020).
Diabetic foot ulcers are a type of complex wound that are notoriously difficult to heal and necessitate rigorous daily wound care that places a substantial burden on the medical system, patients and caregivers (Frykberg & Banks, 2015; Greenhalgh, 2003). Defined as a full-thickness wound (a wound that penetrates dermal tissues) below the ankle in a person with currently or previously diagnosed diabetes mellitus, diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is usually accompanied by neuropathy and/or peripheral artery disease in the lower extremity (Hoogeveen et al., 2015; IWGDF, 2023; van Netten et al., 2016). The progression and outcomes from DFU are worsened by a number of complications associated with living with diabetes and there is a high risk of recurrence. Chronic ulceration can lead to adverse patient outcomes and complications, including sepsis and amputation above or below the knee (Armstrong et al., 2017). Irish data has shown that the lifetime risk of an individual with diabetes mellitus undergoing an amputation was 22.3 times that of an individual without diabetes mellitus and it has been suggested that up to 85% of such amputations are preceded by a non-healing DFU (Buckley et al., 2012). There is also significant mortality associated with DFUs, with up to 50% of patients not surviving five years post amputation. In people with diabetes mellitus who have a ‘high risk’ foot or an active foot ulcer, the risk of premature death is up to nine times the risk of amputation due to the underlying co-morbid diabetes and the risk of premature cardiovascular disease (Vadiveloo et al., 2018).
Early intervention for DFU is listed as a key priority in both national and international guidelines and strategies (HSE: Model of Care for the Diabetic Foot, 2021; International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF, 2023); NHS: National Diabetes Foot Care Audit, 2022. However, despite this international consensus on care delivery based on risk, a systematic review of prevention strategies concluded that the evidence base for interventions to prevent first foot ulcers is ‘practically non-existent’ (van Netten et al., 2016). This same review of interventions to prevent recurrent ulcers found there is strong evidence for self-management and footwear interventions but weak evidence for other interventions. A recent Cochrane systematic review (McGloin et al., 2021) also highlighted the limited psychological interventions that currently exist for patients with DFU and the need for more robust studies in this area. The review recognised the potential impact psychological wellbeing has on wound healing in DFU but also demonstrated that there is a dearth of RCTs in this area, which could be due to the fact that there are very few specialist psychologists working in this field. As a result of the limited number of RCTs available, there is a high risk of bias so conclusions cannot be drawn. A scoping review was thus selected for this study as this methodology will allow synthesis and appraisal of the wider evidence-base, including non-RCT designed studies. A scoping review is also considered the most appropriate methodology to broadly map the key sources and types of evidence available on the area of interest, and identify gaps for further research, when the extent and nature of the research is largely unknown (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Pham et al., 2014).
This review is being conducted to (a) investigate the emotional and psychosocial burden of living with DFU and (b) identify psychological variables that may lead to poor outcomes in DFU. The aim of this review will thus be to understand how psychological factors may impact behaviour, progression of the disease, and management of the condition, in order to make sure that psychological interventions will target the most important factors. The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will guide the reporting of results (Tricco et al., 2018).
Complex wound: In recent years, chronic wounds have been described as “complex wounds,” in order to represent the multifactorial dynamic tissue healing process that is involved (Hall et al., 2014; Labib & Winters, 2024). For a wound to be classified as a complex wound, it must show one of the following features (Ferreira et al., 2006): 1) Persistent for more than three months; 2) Compromised vascularity or necrosis; 3) Presence of infection; 4) Associated comorbidities impair healing potential.
Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU). DFU is defined as an infection, ulceration, or destruction of tissues of the foot of a person with currently or previously diagnosed diabetes mellitus, usually accompanied by neuropathy and/or peripheral artery disease in the lower extremity (IWGDF, 2023).
Emotional wellbeing. Emotional wellbeing refers to a person's overall mental and emotional state of being, characterized by the ability to manage and regulate emotions, cope with stress and adversity, and experience a sense of life satisfaction and overall psychological functioning (Huppert & So, 2013).
Psychosocial wellbeing. Psychosocial wellbeing refers to the combination of psychological and social factors that contribute to an individual's overall sense of well-being (Eisenberg et al., 2007). Encompassing an individual's mental, emotional, social, and spiritual well-being, psychosocial wellbeing can be impacted by a variety of internal and external factors such as cultural and societal norms, physical health, economic status, personal relationships, and life experiences.
Behavioural factors. Behaviour refers to observable actions and processes that are initiated in response to external or internal stimuli that are received (Furr, 2009). Factors that may influence or affect human behaviour include individual characteristics (i.e., the individual’s personal disposition, ideology and belief systems, general knowledge, and personality characteristics), interpersonal factors (i.e., the individual’s relationships, social support network, and spiritual or religious relations), institutional factors (i.e., the individual may behave differently due to the rules, regulations, and informal structures that exist within the community that they reside in or the organization that they work in) and community factors (i.e., an individual’s behaviour may be directly or indirectly influenced by the available resources which they have access to in their community and the associated societal norms).
Wound healing. A healed wound or complete wound closure can be defined as 100% re-epithelialization of the wound without drainage (Armstrong et al., 2017). However, wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers is a complex process. In diabetes, several biological elements can adversely affect ulcer healing including persistent and impaired inflammation, loss of protective sensation, motor neuropathy causing abnormal biomechanics, peripheral arterial disease, and infection (Rayman et al., 2020). The management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) remains a challenge, thus proper wound care is critical to facilitate healing in diabetic foot ulcers. This includes cleaning the wound, keeping it moist, and protecting it from further injury or infection. Other treatment options may include debridement (removal of dead tissue), off-loading (reducing pressure on the ulcer), and various types of wound dressings or advanced therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy or negative pressure wound therapy. Systemic factors such as age, gender or sex, stress levels, medication (steroids, NSAIDs), alcohol use, smoking and diet may also impact wound healing (Chhabra et al., 2017). The management of lifestyle factors, blood sugar levels, infection, and other underlying medical conditions is essential for successful healing of diabetic foot ulcers (Alexiadou & Doupis, 2012).
DFU Recurrence. A new foot ulcer in a person who has a history of foot ulceration, irrespective of location and time since previous foot ulcer (IWGDF, 2023)
This protocol is structured according to the steps suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). Any deviations from the protocol will be tracked on the review’s Open Science Framework project page. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 17 November 2022 (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U5JDW).
As recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (2015), the PCC (Population/ participants, Concept and Context) framework was used to cultivate the research questions for this scoping review. This framework acts as a guide to facilitate the construction of a clear and meaningful title and the development of subsequent question(s) for a scoping review. For the current review, the authors are interested in individuals with diabetic foot ulceration (P) and exploring how living with this condition impacts their emotional and social wellbeing (C) in order to investigate if psychosocial factors influence the progression or reoccurrence of ulceration (C).
Research Questions
Eligibility criteria. The PCC framework that was used for developing the research questions will inform inclusion and exclusion criteria, and consequently the literature search strategy (Peters et al., 2020). A justification will be provided for all exclusion criteria and any given limitations that are required (Pollock et al., 2021; Tricco et al., 2018). The review will consider both qualitative and quantitative primary research in the English language and between the years 2002 and 2022, to ensure currency of content. Unpublished (grey literature) will also be included. See Table 1 for full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
An expert university librarian has been part of the research team from the start of this scoping review. They have assisted with designing and refining the search strategy and provided guidance on how best to adapt these terms for individual databases. This input is crucial to ensure the search strategy and results are transparent and auditable.
A three-step search strategy will be utilised for the scoping review. First, an initial search of two databases, PubMed and PsycINFO, will be undertaken, followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract of retrieved papers. Using the PCC framework, ideas will be expanded using search terms and appropriate thesaurus terms and synonyms. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Databases to be searched include the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OVID (Medline), EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), SCOPUS and Web of Science Core Collection. Thirdly, the reference lists of identified reports and articles will be searched for additional sources. A search for grey material will also be carried out within ProQuest E-Thesis Portal, and Lenus. See Table 2 for search strategy development.
Screening for this review will be conducted within Covidence, a systematic review data management system https://www.covidence.org/ (Covidence, 2019). Covidence is a core component of the Cochrane review production toolkit and has also been endorsed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. An open access alternative such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai/) could also be used.
Pilot testing will be conducted prior to embarking on source selection. This will involve the research team selecting a sample of 25 titles and abstracts at random and two members (MH and EK) independently screening them using the pre-defined eligibility criteria and definitions. The team will then meet and if any discrepancies have been identified these will be discussed and modifications will be made to the eligibility criteria and definitions if required. Screening will start once an agreement rate of 75% (or greater) is achieved. Using the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers will independently screen each title and abstract. A third independent reviewer will be consulted and make the final decision regarding inclusion if consensus is not reached between the two reviewers.
The process of study selection will be reported using a PRISMA flow diagram (Tricco et al., 2018), which will then be updated once the review is completed.
The research team will design a data charting tool, as set out by the PRISMA-ScR Checklist (Tricco et al., 2018), to which the following information will be extracted by two members of the research team:
Author(s)
Year of publication
Study title
Origin/country of origin/origins (where the source was published or conducted)
Aims/purpose
Context
Population
Sample size
Study design/intervention type
Risk of bias
Key findings that relate to the scoping review question/s.
To ensure that the coding framework is consistently applied, two team members will pilot test the charting table by using a sample (10%) of the complete list of retrieved studies that are to be included. If necessary, modifications to the categories and revisions to the charting table may occur at this stage. Any discrepancies or queries that emerge from the pilot will be discussed by the full team before going ahead with the data extraction process. During this iterative process, the authors are aware that the charting tool may also need to be adjusted to ensure accurate representation of all data sources.
A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to visually represent study selection and reasons for exclusion at full text review. Presentation of the results will be in a visual and aggregate form (e.g., using charts and tables), as well as a descriptive format aligning to the objectives and scope of this review.
In order to identify any further references and studies that should be included and to gather feedback regarding the scoping review findings, the Arksey and O’Malley framework proposes an optional sixth step that involves consulting with key stakeholders. The authors of this paper believe this to be a very worthwhile and valuable exercise as it will ensure that the search strategy includes all relevant and appropriate terms and will enhance the relevance of the research overall by gathering feedback on the content. A stakeholder group that included multidisciplinary team members and external collaborators were thus consulted in advance of beginning this review. The group consisted of an independent patient representative (DNN), a clinical psychologist (AD), a podiatrist (VB), a health researcher (HD), and an endocrinologist (KD).
Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an important and meaningful part of research. Accordingly, the authors have begun the process of recruiting a panel of patient representatives to this research project. Understanding the complexity of how emotional and psychosocial factors impact DFU development and reoccurrence is key to informing the content of interventions and the research team believe that any intervention that aims to improve outcomes should be designed with the voice of the user in mind. To ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence, the GRIPP2-SF checklist tool (Staniszewska et al., 2017) will guide reporting of PPI involvement in this study.
DFUs impose a major medical, psychological, social, and financial burden upon patients. In addition to the demands associated with the need to frequently attend healthcare services, effective management of a DFU requires affected individuals to engage in complex, continual, and demanding self-care behaviours. This burden can have a significant impact on quality of life, treatment adherence, and well-being, particularly as the chronic nature of DFUs often leads to prolonged periods of pain, limited mobility, and a constant fear of severe complications such as infection and amputation (Ahmad et al., 2018; Price et al., 2014). From previous research, we know that DFUs also exert a heavy psychological burden on patients and their families (Vileikyte et al., 2020). This has been attributed to reasons such as practical restrictions in daily life, lower social functioning, dependency on others, social deprivation, risk of amputation, increased health care needs, and loss of mobility associated with ulceration severity; which in turn has been associated with feelings of stress, fear, helplessness, and frustration (Hurst et al., 2020; Iversen et al., 2015; Winkley, 2012). A number of studies (Ahmad et al., 2018; Kuang et al., 2021; Margolis et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2021) have also explored how risk factors such as depression, anxiety, low self-efficacy, and poor health literacy skills may effect DFU development and have examined the effectiveness of psychosocial interventios for the prevention and treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes (Norman et al., 2020). However, more extensive research is required to better understand how psychosocial and emotional factors affect people with a history of ulceration, so that we can explore the mechanisms by which psychosocial and behavioural factors may influence foot outcomes, and develop more appropriate interventions (Vileikyte et al., 2020: Westby et al., 2020). Psychological interventions have the potential to improve quality of life and patient outcomes, as they can provide behavioural techniques and strategies that will help people to manage low mood and stress levels, adhere to treatment recommendations, adjust to living with long-term conditions, and feel more in control of managing their overall health and well-being. Thus, it is important to examine the role that psychological factors may have on wound healing in patients with DFU and to identify psychological interventions that may have a positive impact on psychosocial functioning and reoccurrence of foot ulcerations.
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: diabetes-related foot disease, especially offloading for preventing and healing DFUs, and patient adherence.
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Diabetic foot, diabetes, wound care, chronic disease, nursing
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: patient experiences of DFUs; communication of genetic and behavioral risk factors for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; sources of stress and resilience among Latino immigrants, self-administration of cancer screening among Latinos
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Wound care, complex wound, assessment wound.
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
No
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
References
1. Golden SH, Lazo M, Carnethon M, Bertoni AG, et al.: Examining a bidirectional association between depressive symptoms and diabetes.JAMA. 2008; 299 (23): 2751-9 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: The role of psychological/behavioral factors in patient adaptation to diabetic neuropathy and foot ulceration
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Wound care, complex wound, assessment wound.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
| Invited Reviewers | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|
Version 3 (revision) 03 Mar 25 |
read | read | read | read | ||||
|
Version 2 (revision) 01 Oct 24 |
read | read | read | read | ||||
|
Version 1 18 Apr 24 |
read | read | ||||||
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with HRB Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Submission to HRB Open Research is open to all HRB grantholders or people working on a HRB-funded/co-funded grant on or since 1 January 2017. Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from HRB Open Research.
We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to HRB Open Research
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)