Katherine E Rae, Judith Barker, Dominic Upton, Stephen Isbel
{"title":"主动床垫与被动床垫在老年人压力损伤愈合中的比较效果:一项实用等效随机对照研究。","authors":"Katherine E Rae, Judith Barker, Dominic Upton, Stephen Isbel","doi":"10.3390/nursrep15030111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Pressure injuries are an ongoing problem commonly managed with the prescription of pressure mattresses. There is conflicting research about the comparable effectiveness of the two types of pressure mattresses, active and reactive. This, coupled with technological advances and an updated understanding of pressure aetiology, means decision-making when prescribing pressure mattresses is complicated. <b>Objective/Design</b>: A pragmatic approach was used to design an equivalence randomised-controlled trial investigating the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive pressure mattresses in a community setting from a wound healing perspective as well as from a user acceptability perspective. <b>Methods</b>: Participants with an existing pressure injury were provided with an active or reactive mattress for wound healing, with wound stages assessed using photography. Usual clinical care was provided based on the protocols of the health care service, including nursing and occupational therapy input. Participants were monitored for the healing of their existing pressure injuries, using the Revised Photographic Wound Assessment Tool. User acceptability feedback was provided through surveys, including impact on comfort, pain levels and bed mobility. An equivalence design was used for data analysis to determine if the surfaces were comparable. <b>Results</b>: Twelve participants completed the study, which found that people on active mattresses healed 11.71 days (95% CI -55.97-31.78 days) quicker than people on reactive mattresses; however, the small sample size meant that a definitive determination could not be made. Users found bed mobility more challenging, and pain levels decreased, regardless of mattress type. <b>Conclusions</b>: A pragmatic methodology is imperative for research in this field due to the complexity of pressure injury healing. Researchers exploring multi-faceted conditions should consider a pragmatic design to ensure transferability of results to the clinical setting. The results from this study were inconclusive when determining the equivalence of active and reactive mattresses due to the small sample size. When choosing a mattress, prescribers need to consider user preferences and mattress features to ensure user acceptability.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11945283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effectiveness of Active and Reactive Mattresses in Pressure Injury Healing for Older People in Their Own Homes: A Pragmatic Equivalence Randomised-Controlled Study.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine E Rae, Judith Barker, Dominic Upton, Stephen Isbel\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/nursrep15030111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Pressure injuries are an ongoing problem commonly managed with the prescription of pressure mattresses. There is conflicting research about the comparable effectiveness of the two types of pressure mattresses, active and reactive. This, coupled with technological advances and an updated understanding of pressure aetiology, means decision-making when prescribing pressure mattresses is complicated. <b>Objective/Design</b>: A pragmatic approach was used to design an equivalence randomised-controlled trial investigating the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive pressure mattresses in a community setting from a wound healing perspective as well as from a user acceptability perspective. <b>Methods</b>: Participants with an existing pressure injury were provided with an active or reactive mattress for wound healing, with wound stages assessed using photography. Usual clinical care was provided based on the protocols of the health care service, including nursing and occupational therapy input. Participants were monitored for the healing of their existing pressure injuries, using the Revised Photographic Wound Assessment Tool. User acceptability feedback was provided through surveys, including impact on comfort, pain levels and bed mobility. An equivalence design was used for data analysis to determine if the surfaces were comparable. <b>Results</b>: Twelve participants completed the study, which found that people on active mattresses healed 11.71 days (95% CI -55.97-31.78 days) quicker than people on reactive mattresses; however, the small sample size meant that a definitive determination could not be made. Users found bed mobility more challenging, and pain levels decreased, regardless of mattress type. <b>Conclusions</b>: A pragmatic methodology is imperative for research in this field due to the complexity of pressure injury healing. Researchers exploring multi-faceted conditions should consider a pragmatic design to ensure transferability of results to the clinical setting. The results from this study were inconclusive when determining the equivalence of active and reactive mattresses due to the small sample size. When choosing a mattress, prescribers need to consider user preferences and mattress features to ensure user acceptability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11945283/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15030111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15030111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:压力损伤是一个持续存在的问题,通常通过压力床垫的处方来管理。关于两种类型的压力床垫(主动和被动)的可比性,有相互矛盾的研究。再加上技术的进步和对压力病因的最新了解,这意味着在处方压力床垫时的决策是复杂的。目的/设计:采用实用的方法设计一项等效随机对照试验,从伤口愈合的角度和用户可接受的角度调查社区环境中主动和反应性压力床垫的比较有效性。方法:对已有压力性损伤的参与者提供主动或反应性床垫用于伤口愈合,并通过摄影评估伤口分期。通常的临床护理是根据保健服务方案提供的,包括护理和职业治疗投入。使用修订的照片伤口评估工具监测参与者现有压迫性损伤的愈合情况。通过调查提供用户可接受性反馈,包括对舒适度、疼痛程度和床的移动性的影响。采用等效设计进行数据分析,以确定表面是否具有可比性。结果:12名参与者完成了研究,发现使用主动床垫的人比使用被动床垫的人愈合时间快11.71天(95% CI -55.97-31.78天);然而,样本量小意味着不能作出明确的决定。用户发现床的移动更具挑战性,疼痛程度降低,无论床垫类型如何。结论:由于压伤愈合的复杂性,一种实用的方法对该领域的研究至关重要。研究人员探索多方面的条件应考虑一个实用的设计,以确保结果转移到临床设置。由于样本量小,在确定活性床垫和活性床垫的等效性时,本研究的结果尚无定论。在选择床垫时,处方医生需要考虑用户偏好和床垫特性,以确保用户可接受。
Comparative Effectiveness of Active and Reactive Mattresses in Pressure Injury Healing for Older People in Their Own Homes: A Pragmatic Equivalence Randomised-Controlled Study.
Background: Pressure injuries are an ongoing problem commonly managed with the prescription of pressure mattresses. There is conflicting research about the comparable effectiveness of the two types of pressure mattresses, active and reactive. This, coupled with technological advances and an updated understanding of pressure aetiology, means decision-making when prescribing pressure mattresses is complicated. Objective/Design: A pragmatic approach was used to design an equivalence randomised-controlled trial investigating the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive pressure mattresses in a community setting from a wound healing perspective as well as from a user acceptability perspective. Methods: Participants with an existing pressure injury were provided with an active or reactive mattress for wound healing, with wound stages assessed using photography. Usual clinical care was provided based on the protocols of the health care service, including nursing and occupational therapy input. Participants were monitored for the healing of their existing pressure injuries, using the Revised Photographic Wound Assessment Tool. User acceptability feedback was provided through surveys, including impact on comfort, pain levels and bed mobility. An equivalence design was used for data analysis to determine if the surfaces were comparable. Results: Twelve participants completed the study, which found that people on active mattresses healed 11.71 days (95% CI -55.97-31.78 days) quicker than people on reactive mattresses; however, the small sample size meant that a definitive determination could not be made. Users found bed mobility more challenging, and pain levels decreased, regardless of mattress type. Conclusions: A pragmatic methodology is imperative for research in this field due to the complexity of pressure injury healing. Researchers exploring multi-faceted conditions should consider a pragmatic design to ensure transferability of results to the clinical setting. The results from this study were inconclusive when determining the equivalence of active and reactive mattresses due to the small sample size. When choosing a mattress, prescribers need to consider user preferences and mattress features to ensure user acceptability.
期刊介绍:
Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.