Observational studyJournal of clinical nursing2026
Patient and Family Perspectives of Pressure Injury Prevention and Management in Acute Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Observational study in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient and Family Perspectives of Pressure Injury Prevention and Management in Acute Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore pressure injury prevention and management in acute care settings from the perspective of patients, caregivers and families.
designCross-sectional survey.
methodsA convenience sample of patients at risk of pressure injuries and their family or caregivers was recruited from medical, surgical and intensive care units across the province of Alberta, Canada. The custom survey included questions about perspectives on the care they received, involvement in care and preferences regarding involvement. Data were summarised with descriptive statistics and analysed using generalised estimating equations, logistic regressions and Mann-Whitney U-tests.
resultsThe response rate was 44%. The survey was completed by 161 participants (80.1% patients and 19.9% caregivers). The participants were 58.4% female, 63.4% from rural locations and 21.1% self-reported a pressure injury. Participants were most involved in repositioning activities and least involved in activities related to exercise. While 80.7% of respondents reported knowing what a pressure injury was, 69.6% reported that they had not heard about or received prevention resources from the healthcare team. Hearing about pressure injury prevention while admitted to hospital was associated with a significantly lower self-reported presence of pressure injuries. Brochures/pamphlets and verbal information were the most preferred educational resources.
conclusionsPatient and family perspectives should inform pressure injury education and prevention activities in acute care settings. We recommend utilising brochures/pamphlets and verbal information, enhancing activity levels and exercise, encouraging patients and families to actively participate in prevention and maintaining a culture of supporting patient and family advocacy. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Findings provide insight into patient and family perspectives on pressure injury prevention and management in the hospital setting that can be addressed to enhance patient and family-centred pressure injury prevention. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and family advisors informed the design of the survey and provided feedback on content, formatting and readability. REPORTING
methodStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for cross-sectional studies.
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.