Sajel S, Saranya P
Sajel S1, Saranya P2*
1Pharm. D Intern, Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences,Vels University
2Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vels University.
Volume - 10,
Issue - 1,
Year - 2017
The objective of the study was to compare the quality of life (QOL) in men and women with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) using RAND-36 Questionnaire and also to improve their quality of life by structured patient education. The study was designed to be a cross sectional study in which 82 men and 78 women with diabetic foot ulcer were enrolled. Socio-demographic variables were documented and assessed using RAND SF-36 a questionnaire for all subjects. RAND SF-36 scale scores were compared using statistical descriptive and analytical method. QOL was found to be worse in women when compared to men. Out of 160 study participants, 51% were male and 48 % were female with a mean (+ SD) age of 45 (+3) and 43 (± 7.3) respectively. The QOL score analysis demonstrated that the physical health was subsequently limited due to physical activity (p<0.0001) and pain (p<0.0001) with a significant difference between men and women. However, analyzing the social functioning scores of the subjects showed a non-significant relationship of p value (0.7133) and general health (p=0. 3427). Although on further evaluation, the scores of emotional well being and energy scores of the patient showed a significant difference with a p value of <0.0001 and 0.0004 respectively. The correlation between the age and physical function exhibited a significant difference between the genders (p<0.0001). Female patients with DFU had a lower score for quality of life when all the 8 domains in RAND SF-36 questionnaire were assessed. Adapting patient educational programs and appropriate life style modifications can improve the quality of life in these patients.
Cite this article:
Sajel S, Saranya P. Quality of Life in patients experiencing Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A cross sectional study in a Clinical Pharmacist’s Perspective. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2017; 10(1): 219-222. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2017.00046.4