Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36901051›Full record

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.

Anderson S Rêgo, Luísa Filipe, Rosana A Dias, Filipe S Alves, José Queiroz, Alar Ainla, Luísa M Arruda, Raul Fangueiro, Maria Bouçanova, Rafael A Bernardes and 5 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Design of Innovative Clothing for Pressure Injury Prevention: End-User Evaluation in a Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anderson S RêgoHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-5728
Luísa FilipeHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6405-9234
Rosana A DiasInternational Iberian Laboratory of Nanotechnology (INL), 4715-330 Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3877-0946
Filipe S AlvesInternational Iberian Laboratory of Nanotechnology (INL), 4715-330 Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3439-8235
José QueirozInternational Iberian Laboratory of Nanotechnology (INL), 4715-330 Braga, Portugal.
Alar AinlaInternational Iberian Laboratory of Nanotechnology (INL), 4715-330 Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8969-3752
Luísa M ArrudaFibrenamics, Institute of Innovation on Fibre-Based Materials and Composites, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5172-459X
Raul FangueiroFibrenamics, Institute of Innovation on Fibre-Based Materials and Composites, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3303-6563
Maria BouçanovaImpetus Portugal-Têxteis Sa (IMPETUS), 4740-696 Barcelos, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0000-2624-1521
Rafael A BernardesHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2110-7483
Liliana B de SousaHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8914-6975
Paulo Santos-CostaHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0761-6548
João A ApóstoloHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3050-4264
Pedro ParreiraHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3880-6590
Anabela Salgueiro-OliveiraHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), 3000-232 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8231-8279
Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Coimbra · PTInternational Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory · PTUniversity of Minho · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Pressure UlcerClothingEquipment DesignHumansPhysical ExaminationTemperaturebedridden personsbiomedical technology assessmentmobility limitationpressure injuryprotective clothingwearable electronic devices

Identifiers

PMID36901051
PMCPMC10001934
OpenAlexW4321787483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read11
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.