ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development of an evidence-based pressure injury prevention care bundle for home-care settings: a systematic review and Delphi study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressure injury (PI) is largely preventable yet remains challenging to manage within Taiwan’s home-care system, where daily care is primarily delivered by family carers with intermittent support from visiting nurses. Existing hospital-based PI guidelines often lack contextual relevance for community environments. This study aimed to develop an evidence-based and culturally adapted PI prevention care bundle tailored to home-care practice.
methodsA three-phase modified e-Delphi process was conducted between August 2023 and August 2024. Phase 1 involved a systematic review to identify relevant evidence sources; Phase 2 comprised an expert workshop with five wound-care specialists; and Phase 3 included two rounds of e-Delphi consultation (21 experts in Round 1 and 20 in Round 2). A total of 8,999 records were identified. Of these, 110 records were screened and 73 full-text reports were assessed for eligibility, resulting in ten evidence sources (comprising eight empirical studies and two clinical guidelines). Item-level consensus was determined using predefined criteria, while Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W), coefficient of variation (CV), and authority coefficient (Cr) were used to assess panel agreement, rating stability, and expert credibility.
resultsThe final care bundle comprised five domains and 28 items adapted from the SSKIN framework. Expert agreement improved from Kendall’s W = 0.321 in Round 1 to 0.388 in Round 2 (both p < 0.001). Round 2 CV values ranged from 0.00 to 0.06, and the mean authority coefficient was 0.92, indicating stable consensus and high expert credibility.
conclusionsThe developed care bundle provides a structured, evidence-based framework to support both nurses and family carers in delivering consistent PI prevention in home-care settings. It may also serve as a reference model for regions with similar workforce structures and community-based care systems. Further clinical validation and implementation research are required to assess effectiveness, scalability, and cross-context applicability.
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.