• 1

    Nettleton S: “The Sociology of the Body,” in The Sociology of Health and Illness, ed by S Nettleton, p 100, Blackwell, Oxford. ,1995. .

  • 2

    Brodie BA, Rees CL, Robins DJ, et al: Wessex feet: a regional foot health survey. .The Chiropodist 43::152. ,1988. .

  • 3

    Stevens G: Feet first: the report of the joint Department of Health and NHS Chiropody task force. .J Br Podiatr Med 49::210. ,1994. .

  • 4

    Graham P: Feet first: the future of NHS podiatry services. .Podiatry Now 2::389. ,1999. .

  • 5

    Pushpangadan M, Burns E: Caring for older people: community services: health. .BMJ 313::805. ,1996. .

  • 6

    Harvey I, Frankel S, Marks R, et al: Foot morbidity and exposure to chiropody: a population based study. .BMJ 315::1054. ,1997. .

  • 7

    King's Fund Workshop: Research and Development: The Podiatry Agenda, King’s Fund Publications, London. ,1995. .

  • 8

    Cant F: Patient assessment and episode of care. .Br J Podiatry 2::3. ,1999. .

  • 9

    Chambers P: A case for qualitative research in podiatry. .Br J Podiatry 3::3. ,2000. .

  • 10

    Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE: The Foot Function Index: a measure of pain and disability. .J Clin Epidemiol 44::561. ,1991. .

  • 11

    Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, et al: Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. .JAPMA 88::419. ,1998. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Bowling A: Measuring Disease, Open University Press, Buckingham, England. ,1996. .

  • 13

    Royal College of Nursing (ed): Nursing Care of Older Patients from Black and Minority Ethnic Communities, Royal College of Nursing, London. ,1998. .

  • 14

    Pope C, Zeibland S, Mays M: Analysing qualitative data. .BMJ 320::114. ,2000. .

  • 15

    Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. .Lancet 1::307. ,1986. .

  • 16

    United Bristol Healthcare National Health Service Trust: Chiropody Assessment Criteria Score, United Bristol Healthcare National Health Service Trust, Bristol, England. ,1996. .

  • 17

    Likert R: A technique for the development of attitude scales. .Educ Psychol Measure 12::313. ,1952. .

  • 18

    de Vaus DA: “The Process of Analysis: Initial Analysis,” in Surveys in Social Research, 4th Ed, p 285, UCL Press Ltd, London. ,1996. .

  • 19

    Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al: Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. .BMJ 322::468. ,2001. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Department of Health (ed): National Service Framework for Older People, Department of Health, London. ,2001. .

  • 21

    Regan D, Smith J: The Fullness of Time, Counsel and Care, London. ,1997. .

  • 22

    Garrow AP, Papaggeorgiou AC, Silman AJ, et al: Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. .Pain 85::107. ,2000. .

  • 23

    Stuck AF, Siu AL, Wieland GD, et al: Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. .Lancet 342::1032. ,1993. .

  • 24

    Fletcher A: Multidimensional assessment of elderly people in the community. .Br Med Bull 54::945. ,1998. .

The Bristol Foot Score

Developing a Patient-Based Foot-Health Measure

Sue Barnett PhD, DPodM1, Rona Campbell PhD2, and Ian Harvey PhD, MB3
View More View Less
  • 1 Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Bristol.
  • | 2 Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
  • | 3 School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.
Restricted access

We sought to develop a patient-centered foot-health assessment tool by conducting in-depth interviews, focus groups, and surveys of relevant patient groups. A total of 400 hospital- and community-based podiatric patients took part in the development of the Bristol Foot Score, which was refined from a 41-item self-administered questionnaire to one containing 15 items. Podiatric patients easily understood the final questionnaire, and rates of completion were excellent. Overall reliability was high (Cronbach α = .9036), and application of the Bland and Altman technique suggested that the foot score produced stable measurements over time. Statistically significant differences were detected in scores before and after toenail surgery, indicating that the Bristol Foot Score is sensitive to change. A poor level of concordance was found between the Bristol Foot Score and a Chiropody Assessment Criteria Score routinely used by podiatrists to assess the need for podiatric care. The Bristol Foot Score reflects patients’ perceptions of their own foot health, providing a useful additional tool for evaluating the efficacy of interventions and describing foot health within populations. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 95(3): 264–272, 2005)

Corresponding author: Sue Barnett, PhD, DPodM, University of the West of England, Glenside Campus, Room 1K17, Blackberry Hill, Stapleton, Bristol BS16 1DD, England.