ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
End-User Assessment of an Innovative Clothing-Based Sensor Developed for Pressure Injury Prevention: A Mixed-Method Study.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expert participation in the health technology assessment process: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Design of Innovative Clothing for Pressure Injury Prevention: End-User Evaluation in a Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Development of Smart Clothing to Prevent Pressure Injuries in Bedridden Persons and/or with Severely Impaired Mobility: 4NoPressure Research Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate a clothing prototype that incorporates sensors for the evaluation of pressure, temperature, and humidity for the prevention of pressure injuries, namely regarding physical and comfort requirements. A mixed-method approach was used with concurrent quantitative and qualitative data triangulation. A structured questionnaire was applied before a focus group of experts to evaluate the sensor prototypes. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and the discourse of the collective subject, followed by method integration and meta-inferences. Nine nurses, experts in this topic, aged 32.66 ± 6.28 years and with a time of profession of 10.88 ± 6.19 years, participated in the study. Prototype A presented low evaluation in stiffness (1.56 ± 1.01) and roughness (2.11 ± 1.17). Prototype B showed smaller values in dimension (2.77 ± 0.83) and stiffness (3.00 ± 1.22). Embroidery was assessed as inadequate in terms of stiffness (1.88 ± 1.05) and roughness (2.44 ± 1.01). The results from the questionnaires and focus groups' show low adequacy as to stiffness, roughness, and comfort. The participants highlighted the need for improvements regarding stiffness and comfort, suggesting new proposals for the development of sensors for clothing. The main conclusions are that Prototype A presented the lowest average scores relative to rigidity (1.56 ± 1.01), considered inadequate. This dimension of Prototype B was evaluated as slightly adequate (2.77 ± 0.83). The rigidity (1.88 ± 1.05) of Prototype A + B + embroidery was evaluated as inadequate. The prototype revealed clothing sensors with low adequacy regarding the physical requirements, such as stiffness or roughness. Improvements are needed regarding the stiffness and roughness for the safety and comfort characteristics of the device evaluated.
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.