Trial reportPloS one2022
Healthcare provider and patient/family perceptions of continuous pressure imaging technology for prevention of pressure injuries: A secondary analysis of patients enrolled in a randomized control trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of eHealth Interventions to Prevent Pressure Injuries: A Scoping Review.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the availability of various pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies (e.g., risk identification, use of pressure re-distribution surfaces, frequent repositioning), they persist as a significant issue for healthcare systems worldwide. Continuous pressure imaging (CPI) is a novel technology that could be integrated within a comprehensive approach to the prevention of PIs. We studied the perceptions of healthcare providers and patients/families to identify facilitators and barriers to the use of this technology.
methodsHospitalized patients/family members from a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of CPI in preventing PIs completed a survey after 72 hours (or upon discharge from hospital) of CPI monitoring. They were asked questions about prior and current experience with CPI technology. For healthcare providers, perceptions on the use of the device and its impact on care were explored through a survey distributed by email or hard copies.
resultsA total of 125 healthcare providers and 525 patients/family members completed the surveys. Of the healthcare providers, 95% either agreed/strongly agreed that the CPI technology was easy to use and 65% stated that the device improved how they provided pressure relief for patients. Identified issues with the device were cost, the fitting of the mattress cover, and the fixation of the patients/families on the device. Over a quarter of the patient/family respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the device influenced how pressure relief was provided. This response was statistically associated with whether the monitor was turned on (intervention arm; 52.7%) or off (control arm; 4.2%). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionCPI technology was positively perceived by healthcare providers. Most patients/families felt it influenced care when the CPI monitor was turned on. Concerns raised around cost and the ease of use of these devices by healthcare providers may affect the decisions of healthcare system administrators to adopt and implement this technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.