Assessing nurses' attitudes towards pressure ulcer prevention: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise and synthesise the existing research literature pertaining to nurses' attitudes toward pressure ulcer (PU) prevention. METHOD: The systematic review presented in our paper serves as an updated version of the definitive review conducted by Avsar et al. in 2019. Using systematic review methodology, we considered published quantitative studies focusing on nurses' attitudes toward PU prevention as measured using psychometric tests. The search was conducted in April 2022, using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane and EMBASE databases, and returned 454 records, of which 35 met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a pre-designed extraction tool and all included studies were quality appraised using the evidence-based librarianship (EBL) appraisal checklist. RESULTS: In most studies, distinct measurement instruments were used for measuring nurses' attitudes toward the prevention of PUs: the Moore and Price Attitude Scale and the Attitude towards Pressure Ulcer Prevention Instrument (APuP). In this first update, the mean attitude score was 69% (±14%, range: 33.6-89%). A separate analysis of the new studies alone included in this first update (n=14) indicated a mean attitude score of 62.25% (±17.9%; median: 14%), suggesting a 10.75% lower mean attitude score. In total, 46% (n=16) yielded a score ≥75%. Conversely, Avsar et al. in 2019, 86% (n=18) of studies yielded positive attitude results. Studies from the Middle East show the lowest mean attitude score (mean 55%; ±15%; median 53%; n=9), with studies from Europe displaying the highest mean attitude score (mean 79%; ±6%; median 79%; n=12). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that, overall, nurses are relatively positively disposed toward PU prevention. However, there are differences across continents. It is important to highlight also that the nurses have difficulties reflecting this positive attitude into actual preventative strategies.

Health-related quality of life and assessment in patients with lower limb lymphoedema: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of lower limb lymphoedema (LLL) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to identify the methodologies used to assess HRQoL and their adherence to the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended HRQoL dimensions. METHOD: A systematic review was used following the PRISMA guidance. Studies were eligible if they assessed HRQoL in adult patients with LLL. The search was conducted between September 2019 and February 2020 using CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database. Data were placed onto a pre-developed data extraction table and analysed using a narrative synthesis. Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL) was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were identified, among which 10 were cross-sectional and eight were longitudinal studies. Twelve HRQoL questionnaires were identified and the Lymphoedema Quality of Life tool (LYMQoL) was the most commonly used. All of the studies except one had an EBL validity score of ≥75%. Although LLL causes a considerable impairment in HRQoL, the findings varied across the studies. All the studies considered at least four of the six WHO recommended dimensions, with none considering the spirituality dimension. Furthermore, physical functioning and wellbeing were discovered to be the worst affected HRQoL dimensions. CONCLUSION: LLL adversely affects physical function, wellbeing and thus the HRQoL. The LYMQoL is the most commonly used questionnaire; despite this, all elements of the WHO recommendations were not captured in the included studies. However, accurate information on HRQoL indicating the impact of the disease on survivors' lives and complete wellbeing is needed to inform evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, having a universally accepted, disease-specific methodology will facilitate comparison and contrasting of HRQoL in patients with LLL. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors have no conflicts of interest.