Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39439541›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2024

Factors Influencing Self-Wound Care Adoption in Singaporean Communities: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Ling Jia Goh, Xiaoli Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ling Jia GohDepartment of Nursing, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, Singapore.
Xiaoli ZhuDepartment of Nursing, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Managing wounds often requires frequent clinic visits, posing a burden on both patients and the healthcare system. Shared wound care, which encourages patients to manage dressings at home, has emerged as a potential solution. This study investigates factors influencing self-wound care adoption in Singapore. Methods: A cross-sectional survey involving 328 participants from six primary healthcare centers was conducted. The survey examined demographics, wound characteristics, and perceptions towards shared wound care using a locally validated questionnaire. Parametric tests and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Results: Unlike older participants, younger adults valued time saved through self-care and found clinic visits inconvenient. Participants in the younger age group, those in fixed-schedule employment, and students were more likely to opt for the self-wound care program and adopt self-wound care. Strong social support (p=0.034) and wound location on the head, neck, or face were the most significant factors (p=0.023) favoring self-care. Interestingly, participants with no formal education were significantly more likely to embrace self-wound care (p=0.006 to 0.012). Conclusions: Using individual attributes to select participants for self-wound care adoption may be more effective than relying on educational level. Strong social networks and encouragement from family and community can play a crucial role in promoting self-care practices. However, the generalizability of the findings may be limited, as the study was conducted solely within a Singaporean primary healthcare setting. All the same, while wound care practices may vary across countries, the foundational concepts of wound care are universal in the world. Insights about self-wound care can therefore be valuable and informative on a global scale, not just within Singapore.

Indexed as

Keywords self-carepromote self-wound careself-care adoptionshared wound care practices

Identifiers

PMID39439541
PMCPMC11493307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.