| Title |
Nurses’ attitude and perceived barriers to pressure ulcer prevention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nursing, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12912-018-0282-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Werku Etafa, Zeleke Argaw, Endalew Gemechu, Belachew Melese |
| Abstract |
The presence or absence of pressure ulcers has been generally regarded as a performance measure of quality nursing care and overall patient health. The aim of this study- wasto explorenurses' attitude about pressure ulcer prevention'and to identify staff nurses' perceived barriers to pressure ulcer prevention public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A self-reported multi-center institutional based cross sectional study design was employed to collect data from staff nurses (N = 222) working in six (6) selected public hospitals in Addis Ababa, from April 01-28/2015. Majority of the nurses had (n = 116, 52.2%) negative attitude towards pressure ulcer prevention. The mean scores of the test for all participants was 3.09out of 11(SD =0.92, range = 1-5). Similarly, the study revealed several barriers need to be resolved to put in to practice the strategies of pressure ulcer prevention; Heavy workload and inadequate staff (lack of tie) (83.1%), shortage of resources/equipment (67.7%) and inadequate training (63.2%) were among the major barriers identified in the study. The study finding suggests that Addis Ababa nurses have negative attitude to pressure ulcer prevention. Also several barriers exist for implementing pressure ulcer prevention protocols in public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Suggestion for improving this situation is attractive. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 253 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 6% |
| Researcher | 14 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 44 | 17% |
| Unknown | 103 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 90 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 11% |
| Unknown | 103 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#660
of 760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,193
of 296,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.