ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025
Knowledge status of skin tear prevention and its demographic and occupational influencing factors: A National cross-sectional survey among nurses.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. 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.
- Development and Validation of the Content of a Mobile Digital Board-Game Application, Constituting a Playful Tool for the Management of Friction Injuries.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Article
- Knowledge status of skin tear prevention and its demographic and occupational influencing factors: A National cross-sectional survey among nurses.Journal of advanced nursing · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimA skin tear (ST) is a common skin injury that is often misdiagnosed or overlooked. This study examined the current state of nurses' ST knowledge and its influencing factors.
designA national cross-sectional survey combined with a quantitative analysis was used to provide evidence of poor ST knowledge among nurses and its influencing factors.
methodsAn electronic questionnaire survey was conducted among 1293 nurses from 32 hospitals in 18 provinces across China, including a General Information Questionnaire, ST Knowledge Assessment Instrument (OASES) and a Self-directed Learning Competence Scale for Nurses (SLCS-N).
resultsThe mean OASES score was 9.51 ± 3.15, with a score rate of 47.55%. Pearson's correlation analysis showed positive correlations, ranging from none to strong, between every dimension in the OASES and from strong to extremely strong between every dimension in the SLCS-N. Multivariate analysis revealed multiple independent factors influencing ST knowledge, such as hospital tier, specialized nurses in wound/ostomy/incontinence care, participation in training for wound/ostomy/incontinence management, willingness to undergo ST training, self-assessed grade in ST care and the degree of emphasis of managers.
conclusionST knowledge status was generally poor among nurses nationwide. Managers should establish a comprehensive and specialized curriculum-based system, develop evidence-based standardized nursing processes, and provide tailored training programs to address nurses' unique characteristics and individualized needs, thereby enhancing their proficiency in ST-related knowledge and skills. IMPACT: This study is the first to identify a poor level of ST knowledge among nurses nationwide, particularly in the four dimensions of risk assessment: prevention, treatment, classification, and observation. Based on the findings regarding demographic factors and ST experiences, an integrated management system and educational program should be implemented to improve nurses' awareness and knowledge in this field. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contributions.
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.