Open AccessEvaluation and optimisation of a footwear assessment tool for use within a clinical environment
Author(s) -
Ellis Stephen,
Branthwaite Helen,
Chockalingam Nachiappan
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of foot and ankle research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.763
H-Index - 39
ISSN - 1757-1146
DOI - 10.1186/s13047-022-00519-6
Subject(s) - podiatrist , medicine , test (biology) , delphi method , podiatry , physical therapy , delphi , population , medical education , physical medicine and rehabilitation , alternative medicine , surgery , computer science , artificial intelligence , environmental health , paleontology , pathology , biology , operating system , complication
Footwear has been documented as a significant factor in the aetiology of foot pain in the general population. Assessing footwear in a clinical setting continues to be practitioner specific and there is limited guidance to direct advice. Health professionals must have access to clinically appropriate and reliable footwear assessment tools to educate patients on healthier footwear choices. The primary aim of this study was to critique what elements should be in a footwear assessment tool with a secondary aim of testing the agreed tool for validity. A combined Nominal Group Technique and then a Delphi technique from purposively sampled experts of foot health professions were employed to critique elements of footwear assessment. The agreed tool was then tested by practising podiatrists on 5 different shoes to assess the validity and reliability of the measures. Twelve test evaluation criteria were identified receiving significant ratings to form the final footwear assessment tool consisting of five footwear themes. Application of the tool in a clinical setting validated the themes of footwear characteristics, footwear structure, motion control and wear patterns. However, the assessment of footwear fit was not reliable. The footwear tool was refined based on the collective consensus achieved from the rounds creating a more clinically appropriate tool. The validity of this tool was assessed as high in some of the themes but for those that were lower, a training need was identified.