改良版lnlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具在三甲医院中应用效果评价

Study on the Application of Improved Inlow’s 60 Second Diabetes Screening Tool in a First-Class Hospital at Grade 3

摘要: 目的：探讨改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具在糖尿病患者中的应用效果，为临床糖尿病足的筛查提供一种有效的证据。方法：本研究为横断面研究，收自2014年1月~2018年12月在本院就诊的132例2型糖尿病患者为研究对象，利用改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表进行评估。自行制定问卷，收集统计并记录患者的糖尿病家族史，糖尿病足Wager分级、吸烟史和饮酒史，以及糖尿病足的病程等。利用单因素分析患者一般基准资料与改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表评分的相关性；以Cronbach’s α系数和重测信度反映量表的信度，应用主成分分析及最大方差正交旋转法分析改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表的结构效度。结果：入组患者一般资料均与改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表评分密切相关(P < 0.05)。另外，改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表各条目临界比值(CR)差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)；其次，改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表观察维度条目与总量表分值的相关系数为0.412~0.433，触摸维度条目与总量表得分的相关性系数为0.422~0.476，评定维度各条目分值与总量表的相关性系数为0.399~0.514，Bartlett’s球形检验统计量为52766.345 (df = 310，P = 0.000)，KMO为0.824，各条目在所属分量表上的因子荷载值均 > 0.45，累计贡献率65.17%。结论：改良版Inlow’s 60 s糖尿病足筛查工具表具有良好的信效度，临床应用简单、经济，能迅速评估糖尿病足溃疡风险。

Abstract: Objective: To explore the application of improved Inlow’s 60 second diabetes screening tool in diabetic patients, so as to provide an effective tool for clinical detection of diabetic foot. Method: This study is a cross-sectional study. 132 patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized in our hospital from January 2014 to December 2018 were taken as the study objects and evaluated with the Chinese version of the improved Inlow’s 60 second diabetic foot screening tool table. The family history of diabetes, wager grade of diabetic foot, smoking and drinking history, and the course of diabetic foot were recorded. The correlation between the general baseline data of the enrolled patients and the score of Inlow’s 60 second diabetic foot screening tool was analyzed by single factor analysis. Pearson product difference correlation analysis was used for homogeneity test. Cronbach’s α coefficient and retest reliability were used to reflect the reliability of the scale. Principal component analysis and maximum variance orthogonal rotation method were used to analyze Structure validity of Inlow’s 60 second diabetic foot screening tool. Results: The general data of the patients were closely related to the score of the modified version of Inlow’s 60 s Diabetic foot screening tool (P < 0.05). In addition, there was significant difference in the critical ratio (CR) of each item in the modified Inlow’s 60 s diabetic foot screening tool table (P < 0.05). Secondly, the correlation coefficient between the observation dimension item and the total scale score of the improved Inlow’s 60 s diabetes foot screening tool table is 0.412 - 0.433. And the correlation coefficient between the touch dimension entry and the total table score is 0.422 - 0.476. The correlation coefficient between each item score of the evaluation dimension and the total scale is 0.399 - 0.514, and the Bartlett’s ball test statistic is 52766.345 (df = 310, P = 0.000). KMO is 0.824. The factor load values of each item on the subscale were all more than 0.45, and the cumulative contribution rate was 65.17%. Conclusion: Inlow’s 60 second diabetic foot screening tool has good reliability and validity. It is simple and economical in clinical application and can quickly assess the risk of diabetic foot ulcer.