ArticleBMC nursing2025
Barriers to implementing clinical practice guidelines for managing patients with pressure injuries in China: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.
Article in BMC 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.
- Risk factors for community-acquired pressure injuries: Findings from a large-scale Asian case-control study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Development and comparative evaluation of knowledge graph-enhanced large language models for domain-specific question answering in nursing.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Nurse-Specific Scale to Assess Influencing Factors in Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation: An i-PARIHS-Based Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPressure injuries (PIs) are a common challenge faced by healthcare institutions worldwide. Evidence-based practice is crucial for improving the quality of patient care, but its implementation often faces many difficulties. This study aims to explore the barriers to implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to manage patients with PIs in Chinese tertiary hospitals.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted using the theoretical domains framework to identify barriers to implementing CPGs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 healthcare professionals, including nurses and doctors with experience in managing patients with PIs, across multiple departments in tertiary hospitals. Data were analyzed using content analysis, supported by NVivo 11.0 software, to identify key themes.
resultsThis study identified several barriers to implementing high-quality CPGs for the PIs in China, including insufficient knowledge and skills among healthcare workers. Additionally, challenges such as a lack of multidisciplinary collaboration and information technology support, absence of incentive systems, resource limitations, unfavorable reimbursement policies, and insufficient leadership support were highlighted. Addressing these complex issues requires a multi-faceted system intervention strategy. These findings will provide important references for promoting evidence-based practices in the management of patients with PIs in developing countries.
conclusionsThe findings of this study highlight the ongoing challenges in translating evidence-based CPGs into clinical practice for managing patients with PIs in China. This study systematically identifies key barriers related to healthcare providers' ability, opportunity, and motivation, emphasizing the complexity of factors that hinder effective CPGs implementation. The insights gained lay the groundwork for developing targeted intervention strategies to foster the adoption of best practices in wound care and evidence-based practices to manage PIs in the future. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.