ArticleBMC nursing2026
Healthcare professionals' views on barriers to implementing evidence-based enteral nutrition management in ICU patients receiving prone position ventilation: a qualitative descriptive 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore healthcare professionals' views on barriers to implementing evidence-based enteral nutrition management specifically in ICU patients receiving prone position ventilation, with particular focus on prone positioning-induced challenges distinct from general ICU enteral nutrition care.
designA qualitative descriptive study.
settingThe study was conducted in a general ICU of a tertiary comprehensive hospital in a city in Sichuan Province, China.
methodsIn 2025, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants, including 12 nurses and 3 physicians, all of whom had worked in the ICU for more than one year and had experience in providing enteral nutrition care for patients undergoing prone positioning ventilation. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling until data saturation was achieved. Interview questions specifically targeted prone positioning-related challenges rather than general enteral nutrition barriers. All interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
findingsFour main themes emerged that were uniquely shaped by prone positioning context: (1) prone positioning-specific care prioritization conflicts (airway management during prone position competing with feeding schedules), (2) prone positioning-specific resource demands (specialized positioning equipment, temperature monitoring during restricted patient access), (3) lack of prone positioning-specific training protocols, and (4) communication barriers regarding prone positioning timing and feeding coordination.
conclusionThis study identifies four key barriers that are uniquely amplified or created by the prone positioning context: the conflict between prone positioning-specific airway management and feeding schedules, increased resource demands for specialized positioning care, absence of prone positioning-specific training curricula, and coordination challenges between positioning schedules and enteral nutrition timing.
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.