Pressure ulcer knowledge, beliefs and practices in a group of South Africans with spinal cord injury

11Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Study design: A quantitative, descriptive study using a cross-sectional survey. Objectives: To describe the pressure ulcer knowledge, beliefs and practices amongst persons with SCI, who received rehabilitation at a Cape Town rehabilitation centre. Setting: A rehabilitation centre for clients with physical disabilities in Cape Town, South Africa. Methods: A quantitative, descriptive study, that employed consecutive sampling, was done. Participants included inpatients (n = 30), outpatients (n = 33) and peer supporters (n = 8). Data were collected during April and March 2015 with a questionnaire developed through collating existing questionnaires and adapting it for the study context. This rendered a knowledge score and data on beliefs and practices. The Fisher’s exact test was used for comparative analysis (p < 0.05). Results: The mean combined knowledge score was 42.7%. The majority of participants (88.7%) believed pressure ulcers to be serious and 45% thought they were likely to develop a PU. They believed daily skin checks (80.3%), weight shifting (86%) and limiting sitting time (80.3%) could prevent PU development. Study participants indicated that they did not regularly follow guideline recommended practices like regular pressure relief (51%) (36 participants) or daily skin inspection (38%) (27 participants) and 37% (26 participants) reported being current smokers. Conclusion: Participants showed a lack of knowledge, which might have affected their pressure ulcer prevention practices negatively. The study findings can be used to assist with the development of a contextually relevant training programme on pressure care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Visser, A. M., & Visagie, S. (2019). Pressure ulcer knowledge, beliefs and practices in a group of South Africans with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Series and Cases, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-019-0226-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free