Shuo Li,1 Yan Liu,2 Yu Chen3 

1Department of Endocrinology, Jinan Third People’s Hospital, Jinan, Shandong, 250132, People’s Republic of China; 2Cardiovascular Department, Jinan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 3Public Health Department of Qingdao Fifth People’s Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, 266002, People’s Republic of China

Correspondence: Yu Chen, Public Health Department of Qingdao Fifth People’s Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, 266002, People’s Republic of China, Email oco719@126.com

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention—comprising rehabilitation management and foot preventive measures—on clinical outcomes, hemorheological parameters, and vascular endothelial function in patients with diabetic foot (DF).
Methods: This retrospective study included 126 DF patients admitted to our hospital from February 2023 to April 2024. Patients were divided into a control group (n = 63, receiving routine nursing care) and an intervention group (n = 63, receiving routine care plus rehabilitation management combined with foot preventive measures). Key outcome measures included: (1) clinical efficacy; (2) hemorheological indicators—whole blood low-shear viscosity (WBLSV), high-shear viscosity (WBHSV), fibrinogen (FIB), and erythrocyte deformability index (EDI); (3) vascular endothelial function indicators—endothelin (ET), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP); (4) self-management ability—Adult Health Self-Management Scale (AHSMSRS), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES); and (5) nursing satisfaction—Newcastle Nursing Service Satisfaction Scale (NSNS).
Results: The intervention group had a significantly higher total treatment efficacy rate (92.06% vs 77.78%, P < 0.05). Post-intervention hemorheological parameters (WBLSV, WBHSV, FIB, EDI) and endothelial markers (ET, bFGF, VEGF, CGRP) showed greater improvement in the intervention group (P < 0.05). Similarly, AHSMSRS scores declined and GSES scores improved more markedly in the intervention group (P < 0.05). Nursing satisfaction was also higher (96.83% vs 71.43%, P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Compared with routine nursing care alone, the multimodal intervention strategy may improve clinical efficacy, hemorheology, endothelial function, self-management capabilities, and patient satisfaction in diabetic foot care. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective design.

Keywords: multimodal intervention, rehabilitation management, foot care, diabetic foot, hemorheology, endothelial function, clinical efficacy