Conectar
To analyse the content of the nursing diagnosis ineffective peripheral tissue perfusion in patients with diabetic foot.
A methodological study with a quantitative approach was performed.
The analysis was performed between January and May 2021 by 34 nurses with clinical/theoretical/research experience with diabetes or nursing diagnoses. These nurses evaluated the relevance, clarity and precision of 12 diagnosis-specific etiological factors, 22 clinical indicators and their conceptual and operational definitions.
All 12 etiological factors analysed were considered relevant to diagnostic identification. However, five showed inconsistencies regarding the clarity or precision of the operational definitions, requiring adjustments. Regarding the 22 clinical indicators evaluated, all of them presented a Content Validity Index (CVI) that was statistically significant. However, in the indicators, the colour does not return to lowered limb after 1 min of leg elevation, and cold foot had Content Validity Index (CVI) <0.9 regarding relevance and accuracy of operational definitions.
Twelve etiological factors and 22 clinical indicators were validated. Thus, this study revealed new and relevant aspects characterising peripheral perfusion in patients with diabetic foot that have not yet been clinically validated.
This study contributes to support the professional practice of nurses through the early identification of etiological factors and clinical indicators in persons with diabetic foot. As a proposal, we suggest the inclusion of new defining characteristics and related factors for the nursing diagnosis ineffective peripheral tissue perfusion in the NANDA-I taxonomy.
The research highlights new and relevant aspects such as etiological factors and clinical indicators to characterise peripheral perfusion in patients with diabetic foot. Based on these findings, clinical validation is recommended to confirm the relevance of the proposed elements in the population studied for greater reliability and improved diagnostic assessment for the professional practice of nurses.
EQUATOR guidelines were adhered to using the GRRAS checklist for reporting reliability and agreement studies.
No patient or public contribution.
The abbreviated World Health Organisation Quality of Life tool (WHOQOL-BREF) is a short-form quality of life (QoL) assessment commonly used worldwide in both healthy and ill populations. Normative data for the Australian general population are limited. The objective of this study was to present normative data for the WHOQOL-BREF based on a general population sample. A secondary aim was to explore sociodemographic factors related to QoL.
Population-based cross-sectional study.
929 men and 830 women aged 24–94 years participating in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study.
The 26-item WHOQOL-BREF.
Means and SD for each domain are presented by age group and sex. Percentile scores were also generated. Mean scores for WHOQOL-BREF domains were 74.52 (SD=16.22) for physical health, 72.07 (SD=15.35) for psychological, 72.87 (SD=18.78) for social relationships and 79.68 (SD=12.55) for environment. We identified significant associations between sociodemographic factors and WHOQOL-BREF domains. Notably, being married or in a relationship was associated with increased odds for high QoL across all four WHOQOL-BREF domains: physical health (women OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.44, p=0.003), psychological (men OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.20 to 3.55, p=0.009; women OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.81, p=0.009), social relationships (men OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.04, p=0.005; women OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.41, p=0.003) and environment (women OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.80, p=0.019).
This study provides population norms for the WHOQOL-BREF based on a representative sample of Australian adults. Our results will be useful to researchers and clinicians who can use these data as a reference point for interpreting WHOQOL-BREF scores.
Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.
FreshRSS 