Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29800486›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Education of healthcare professionals for preventing pressure ulcers.

Alison P Porter-Armstrong, Zena Eh Moore, Ian Bradbury, Suzanne McDonough

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06166641 (Prediction Models for Risk Score and Prognosis of Intraoperatively Acquired Pressure Injury in Surgical Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06166641 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Prediction Models for Risk Score and Prognosis of Intraoperatively Acquired Pressure Injury in Surgical Patients: a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorAffiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled5,658ConditionsPressure Ulcer, Predictive Models, Surgical Patient, Clinical OutcomeArmsSurgical procedure at operating room
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Education of healthcare professionals for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Conference Abstracts "Bridges in Rehabilitation" of the 2Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Bridging the Knowledge Gap for Pressure Injury Management in Nursing Homes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The Incidence and Risk Factors Associated with In-Hospital Pressure Ulcer Development After Peripheral Vascular Thrombolysis Surgery.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alison P Porter-ArmstrongSchool of Health Sciences, University of Ulster, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Belfast, Co Antrim, UK, BT37 0QB.
Zena Eh Moore
Ian Bradbury
Suzanne McDonough
University of Ulster · GBFrontier Agriculture (United Kingdom) · GBRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of healthcare staff has been recognised as an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention. These educational programmes are directed towards influencing behaviour change on the part of the healthcare professional, to encourage preventative practices with the aim of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcer development.

objectivesTo assess the effects of educational interventions for healthcare professionals on pressure ulcer prevention. SEARCH

methodsIn June 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that evaluated the effect of any educational intervention delivered to healthcare staff in any setting to prevent pressure ulceration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria. MAIN

resultsWe identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review: four RCTs and one cluster-RCT. The study characteristics differed in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. The cluster-RCT, and two of the RCTs, explored the effectiveness of education delivered to healthcare staff within residential or nursing home settings, or nursing home and hospital wards, compared to no intervention, or usual practices. Educational intervention in one of these studies was embedded within a broader, quality improvement bundle. The other two individually randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of educational intervention, delivered in two formats, to nursing staff cohorts.Due to the heterogeneity of the studies identified, pooling was not appropriate and we have presented a narrative overview. We explored a number of comparisons (1) education versus no education (2) components of educational intervention in a number of combinations and (3) education delivered in different formats. There were three primary outcomes: change in healthcare professionals' knowledge, change in healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour and incidence of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in health professionals' knowledge depending on whether they receive education or no education on pressure ulcer prevention (hospital group: mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00 to 1.60; 10 participants; nursing home group: MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.37; 10 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with the following comparisons: training, monitoring and observation, versus monitoring and observation (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.05; 345 participants); training, monitoring and observation, versus observation alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.43; 325 participants) or, monitoring and observation versus observation alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.88; 232 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for very serious study limitations and imprecision. We are uncertain whether multilevel intervention versus attention control makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence. The report presented insufficient data to enable further interrogation of this outcome.We are uncertain whether education delivered in different formats such as didactic education versus video-based education (MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.12; 102 participants) or e-learning versus classroom education (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 18 participants), makes any difference to health professionals' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This was based on very low-certainty evidence from two studies, which we downgraded for serious study limitations and study imprecision.None of the included studies explored our other primary outcome: change in health professionals' clinical behaviour. Only one study explored the secondary outcomes of interest, namely, pressure ulcer severity and patient and carer reported outcomes (self-assessed quality of life and functional dependency level respectively). However, this study provided insufficient information to enable our independent assessment of these outcomes within the review. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe are uncertain whether educating healthcare professionals about pressure ulcer prevention makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This is because the included studies provided very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, further information is required to clarify the impact of education of healthcare professionals on the prevention of pressure ulcers.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHumansIncidencePressure UlcerRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29800486
PMCPMC6494581
OpenAlexW2134076112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.