Cochrane · systematic review · CD012006
Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
O'Connor, T, Moore, ZEH, Patton, D · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
26
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
18
Included studies
NR
No studies 18 · 69.2%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 26.9%Low 1 · 3.8%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling versus self‐instruction for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling vs self‐instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (3 months) Self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling vs self‐instruction | RR 0.4 [0.14, 1.18] | 1 study · 92 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Carer self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling versus self‐instruction for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of a new ulcer Carer self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling vs self‐instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (12 months) Carer self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling vs self‐instruction | RR 2.05 [0.19, 21.7] | 1 study · 75 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Home‐based training versus usual care for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Home‐based training vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (3 months) Home‐based training vs usual care | RR 0.53 [0.27, 1.02] | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Enhanced educational intervention and structured follow‐up versus standard education alone for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Enhanced educational intervention and structured follow‐up vs standard education alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer Enhanced educational intervention and structured follow‐up vs standard education alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Education versus standard printed material for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Education vs standard printed material | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure (12 months) Education vs standard printed material | RR 3.57 [0.78, 16.38] | 1 study · 105 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Computerised feedback and one‐on‐one consultations versus no feedback for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: individuals with spinal cord injury
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Computerised feedback and one‐on‐one consultations vs no feedback | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer Computerised feedback and one‐on‐one consultations vs no feedback | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up versus standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up vs standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (24 months) Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up vs standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up | RR 0.55 [0.23, 1.3] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up, versus standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up, for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up, vs standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up, | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (24 months) Standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up, vs standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up, | RR 0.61 [0.34, 1.08] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up versus standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up, for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up vs standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up, | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (24 months) Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up vs standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up, | RR 0.33 [0.17, 0.67] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Spinal Cord Injury Navigator programme versus usual rehabilitation care/education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Spinal Cord Injury Navigator programme vs usual rehabilitation care/education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer Spinal Cord Injury Navigator programme vs usual rehabilitation care/education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Multicomponent motivational interviewing/self‐management intervention with a multi component education intervention versus telephone‐based individual educational counselling plus group education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Multicomponent motivational interviewing/self‐management intervention with a multi component education intervention vs telephone‐based individual educational counselling plus group education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer Multicomponent motivational interviewing/self‐management intervention with a multi component education intervention vs telephone‐based individual educational counselling plus group education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pressure ulcer prevention care bundle versus standard care for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Pressure ulcer prevention care bundle vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (28 days) Pressure ulcer prevention care bundle vs standard care | HR 0.58 [0.25, 1.33] | 1 study · 1598 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Structured, patient‐centric pressure ulcer prevention education event versus standard unit education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations
Population: s
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to occurrence of new ulcer Structured, patient‐centric pressure ulcer prevention education event vs standard unit education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer Structured, patient‐centric pressure ulcer prevention education event vs standard unit education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |