Effect of training programmes on nurses&apos; ability to care for subjects with pressure injuries: A meta‐analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

We performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the education effects on nurses' ability to care for subjects with pressure injuries. A systematic literature search up to April 2021 was carried out, and 29 studies included 5704 nurses at the start of the study; 3800 of them were experiment or post‐training and 3804 were control or per‐training. They were reporting relationships between the education effects on nurses' ability to care for subjects with pressure injuries. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the education effects on nurses' ability to care for subjects with pressure injuries using the dichotomous or continuous method with a random or fixed‐effect model. Experiment or post‐trained nurses had significantly higher knowledge score (MD, 10.00; 95% CI, 7.61‐12.39, P < .001), number of nurses with proper knowledge (OR, 20.70; 95% CI, 10.80‐39.67, P < .001), practice score (MD, 12.39; 95% CI, 5.37‐19.42, P < .001), and number of nurses with proper practice (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.75‐7.25, P < .001), attitudes score (MD, 7.46; 95% CI, 2.94‐11.99, P < .001) compared with control or pertained nurses. Training may have a beneficial effect on improving the nurses' ability to care for subjects with pressure injuries, which was obvious in improving knowledge, practice, and attitudes post‐training. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

Related collections

Most cited references 63

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon Thompson, Jonathan Deeks … (2003)

0 comments Cited 9630 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2009)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

0 comments Cited 2271 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

D F Stroup, J A Berlin, S C Morton … (2000)

Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

0 comments Cited 2198 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Meng Xiangli:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5463-109X

mhyr1987@sina.com

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int Wound J

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int Wound J

Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)1742-481X

Journal ID (publisher-id): IWJ

Title: International Wound Journal

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )

ISSN (Print): 1742-4801

ISSN (Electronic): 1742-481X

Publication date (Electronic): 10 June 2021

Publication date Collection: February 2022

Volume: 19

Issue: 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/iwj.v19.2 )

Pages: 262-271

Affiliations

[ ¹ ] Department of Outpatient The Fourth Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine Jinhua China

[ ² ] Department of Neurosurgery Ward Shaoxing People's Hospital Shaoxing China

[ ³ ] Department of General Ward Shaoxing Central Hospital Shaoxing China

Author notes

[*] [* ] Correspondence

Meng Xiangli, Department of General Ward, Shaoxing Central Hospital, Shaoxing, Zhejiang 312030, China.

Email: mhyr1987@ 123456sina.com

Author information

Meng Xiangli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5463-109X

Article

Publisher ID: IWJ13627

DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13627

PMC ID: 8762546

PubMed ID: 34114729

SO-VID: a45e04a6-f954-47c8-8995-77b78d40c0ff

License:

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.