Gender differences in attitudes and attributes of people using therapeutic shoes for diabetic foot complications

Table 3 Preferences for therapeutic and conventional shoes, mean values (SD)

	All	Men	Women	P-value^a
Effect on ulcer healing	1.8 (0.8)	1.8 (0.8)	1.9 (0.9)	0.357
Effect on reducing risk of new ulcers	1.8 (0.8)	1.8 (0.8)	1.8 (0.8)	0.588
Difficulties walking in the shoes	2.3 (1.1)	2.3 (1.1)	2.3 (1.2)	0.958
Appearance	3.4 (1.2)	3.3 (1.2)	3.6 (1.2)	0.006
Weight	3.3 (1.1)	3.3 (1.1)	3.3 (1.1)	0.563
Price	2.7 (1.1)	2.5 (1.1)	2.9 (1.1)	0.003
Pain when standing and walking	2.1 (1.0)	2.1 (0.9)	2.2 (1.1)	0.216
Difficulties putting on and taking off the shoes	2.6 (1.0)	2.5 (1.0)	2.7 (1.0)	0.063
Ease of use in everyday activities, e.g. in your work	2.3 (1.1)	2.3 (1.1)	2.3 (1.1)	0.982
Feeling inclined to wear the shoes in public	3.0 (1.1)	2.9 (1.1)	3.2 (1.1)	0.024
Fit of the shoes	2.2 (1.1)	2.2 (1.0)	2.3 (1.1)	0.517

^aTwo-sided Mann–Whitney U test. P-values less than 0.05 are written in boldface. Rating scale: 1 = therapeutic shoes are much better, 2 = therapeutic shoes are better, 3 = no difference, 4 = conventional shoes are better, 5 = conventional shoes are much better

ISSN: 1757-1146