ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Clinical nurses' attitudes towards medical device-related pressure injuries and an analysis of relevant influencing factors: A cross-sectional study in China.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Rotating-Leg Prepper for Reducing Pressure Injury and Preventing Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Heart Surgery: Paired Matching Randomised Controlled Trial.International wound journal · 2025Trial
- Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Prevention Among Nursing Students Undertaking Clinical Placements: A Cross-Sectional Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Knowledge gaps in pressure injury, medical device-related pressure injury, and skin tear among intensive care unit nurses.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Knowledge Levels and Attitudes of Intensive Care Nurses Regarding Medical Device-Related Pressure Injuries.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Characteristics, risk factors, prevention and nursing measures of medical device-related pressure injuries in critically ill patients: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Clinical nurses' attitudes towards medical device-related pressure injuries and an analysis of relevant influencing factors: A cross-sectional study in China.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore Chinese clinical nurses' attitudes towards medical device-related pressure injuries (PIs) and analyse the relevant influencing factors. Between December 2023 and January 2024, a cross-sectional survey of 1740 clinical nurses from three tertiary hospitals, three secondary hospitals and five community hospitals in Shanghai, China, was conducted via the Chinese version of the Attitude towards medical device-related pressure ulcers/injuries questionnaire. A total of 1693 nurses participated in this study. Nurses' total score regarding their attitudes towards medical device-related PIs was 36.60 ± 8.97, and multiple linear regression analysis revealed that clinical nurses' highest level of education (p < 0.001), professional title (p < 0.001), position (p = 0.001), years of work experience (p < 0.001) and participation in medical device-related pressure injury (PI) training (p < 0.001) influenced their attitudes towards medical device-related PIs. Nurses' attitudes towards medical device-related PIs ranged between negative and positive. Therefore, it is essential to focus on the highest level of education, professional title, position and years of work experience. Increasing the frequency of medical device-related pressure injury (PI) prevention training will improve nurses' attitudes towards medical device-related PIs.
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.