A conceptual framework for contemporary professional foot care practice: ''The value based digital foot care framework''.
Biopsychosocial-digital model
Framework
Podiatry practice
Value Based Health Care
Journal
Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Mar 2021
25 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
09
11
2020
accepted:
16
03
2021
entrez:
26
3
2021
pubmed:
27
3
2021
medline:
24
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A small minority of countries around the globe have podiatry as a recognized profession, hence, there are considerable differences among these countries when it comes to the curricula, the duration of training and legislation regulating the profession. The growth in research led evidence based practice, and the emerging digital landscape of health care practice, occur alongside trends in disease and health behaviours that strongly impact on foot health. As such, the changing complex role of the podiatrist requires critical reflection on current frameworks of practice and whether they are fit for purpose. This commentary presents a conceptual framework which sets the scene for further development of concepts in a podiatry context, reflecting contemporary health care beliefs and the changing expectations of health care and society. The proposed conceptual framework for podiatry practice utilizes the metaphor of an electronic circuit to reflect the vast and complex interconnections between factors that affect practice and professional behaviours. The framework helps in portraying and defining drivers of practice, actual practice as well potential barriers for current and future practice. The circuit emphasis the interconnectedness/interaction of three clusters: 1) internal factors, 2) interaction factors, 3) external factors. Whatever promise this new framework holds, it will only be realised through conscious development of community consensus, respectful dialogue, constructive critical appraisal, and maintaining passion and focus on improving the health of people with foot related problems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A small minority of countries around the globe have podiatry as a recognized profession, hence, there are considerable differences among these countries when it comes to the curricula, the duration of training and legislation regulating the profession. The growth in research led evidence based practice, and the emerging digital landscape of health care practice, occur alongside trends in disease and health behaviours that strongly impact on foot health. As such, the changing complex role of the podiatrist requires critical reflection on current frameworks of practice and whether they are fit for purpose. This commentary presents a conceptual framework which sets the scene for further development of concepts in a podiatry context, reflecting contemporary health care beliefs and the changing expectations of health care and society. The proposed conceptual framework for podiatry practice utilizes the metaphor of an electronic circuit to reflect the vast and complex interconnections between factors that affect practice and professional behaviours. The framework helps in portraying and defining drivers of practice, actual practice as well potential barriers for current and future practice. The circuit emphasis the interconnectedness/interaction of three clusters: 1) internal factors, 2) interaction factors, 3) external factors.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Whatever promise this new framework holds, it will only be realised through conscious development of community consensus, respectful dialogue, constructive critical appraisal, and maintaining passion and focus on improving the health of people with foot related problems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33766061
doi: 10.1186/s13047-021-00465-9
pii: 10.1186/s13047-021-00465-9
pmc: PMC7992509
doi:
Types de publication
Letter
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22Subventions
Organisme : Erasmus + Programme
ID : ( Call 2019- KA2-Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices: KA203- Strategic Partnerships for higher education).
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Williams CM, Lazzarini PA. The research capacity and culture of Australian podiatrists. J Foot Ankle Res. 2015;8(1).
Williams AE, Martinez-Santos A, McAdam J, Nester CJ. “Trial and error… happy patients” and “… an old toy in the cupboard”: A qualitative investigation of factors that influence practitioners in their prescription of foot orthoses. J Foot Ankle Res. 2016;9(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s13047-016-0142-9
Mesko B, Györffy Z. The rise of the empowered physician in the digital health era: viewpoint. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e12490.
doi: 10.2196/12490
Australian and New Zealand Podiatry Accreditation Council. Podiatry Competency Standards for Australia and New Zealand. 2015.
TRIEPodD-UK. Podiatry Competency Framework for Integrated Diabetic Foot Care. 2012;(June):1–28.
Upton D, Upton P. Knowledge and use of evidence based practice by allied health and health science professionals in the United Kingdom. J Allied Heal. 2006;35:127–33.
Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
King O, Borthwick A, Nancarrow S, Grace S. Sociology of the professions: What it means for podiatry. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;11(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s13047-018-0275-0
Rao S, Riskowski J, Hannan MT. Musculoskeletal conditions of the foot an ankle: assessments and treatment options. Best Pr Res CLin Rheumatol. 2012;26(3):345–68.
doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2012.05.009
Cahalan R, Purtill H, O’Sullivan K. Biopsychosocial factors associated with foot and ankle pain and injury in Irish dance: A prospective study. Med Probl Perform Art. 2017;32(2):111–7.
doi: 10.21091/mppa.2017.2018
Cotchett MP, Whittaker G, Erbas B. Psychological variables associated with foot function and foot pain in patients with plantar heel pain. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34(5):957–64.
doi: 10.1007/s10067-014-2565-7
Cotchett M, Lennecke A, Medica VG, Whittaker GA, Bonanno DR. The association between pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia with pain and function in people with plantar heel pain. Foot. 2017;32:8–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2017.03.003
Mulligan RP, McCarthy KJ, Grear BJ, Richardson DR, Ishikawa SN, Murphy GA. Psychosocial Risk Factors for Postoperative Pain in Ankle and Hindfoot Reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(10):1065–70.
doi: 10.1177/1071100716655142
Drake C, Mallows A, Littlewood C. Psychosocial variables and presence, severity and prognosis of plantar heel pain: A systematic review of cross-sectional and prognostic associations. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018;16(3):329–38.
doi: 10.1002/msc.1246
Vargas-Prada S, Coggon D. Psychological and psychosocial determinants of musculoskeletal pain and associated disability. Best Pr Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015;29(3):374–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2015.03.003
Nicholas M, Linton S, Watson P, Main C. “Decade of the Flags” Working Group. Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (“yellow flags”) in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):737–53.
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100224
European Commission. Defining value in value based healthcare. Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health. 2019.
Porter ME. What is Value in Health Care? New Engl Jounal Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1011024
Ahmadvand A, Gatchel R, Brownstein J, Nissen L. The biopsychosocial-digital approach to health and disease: Call for a paradigm expansion. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):1–9.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.9732