Cost-effectiveness of nursing interventions for diabetic foot ulcer management: Systematic review

2Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction. Nursing interventions used for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers include traditional and advanced healing techniques. Often their choice depends on the nurse's personal judgment, rather than recognition of cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to identify the most cost-effective nursing interventions for the management of patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Methodology. A systematic review was conducted at Pubmed, Cochrane and the Virtual Health Library. Randomized and non-randomized studies of any nursing intervention used for diabetic foot ulcer management with reported cost-effectiveness were included. The selection of eligible articles was made by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the following guidelines: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Results. Six of the eight included articles were classified at high risk of bias. The two interventions in which a better cost-effectiveness ratio was evidenced compared to the control group were the use of Beta-Glucan gel (compared to placebo) and negative pressure wound therapy (compared to advanced wet wound therapy). Discussion. National and international guidelines for the nursing management of diabetic foot ulcers propose at least 15 different interventions. However, the limited availability of high-quality cost-effectiveness studies makes selection difficult and generates greater variability in nursing practices. Conclusion. Cost-effectiveness studies with direct comparisons of nursing interventions for diabetic foot ulcer management are needed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vásquez-Hernández, S. M., Rico- Ardila, D. L., Gómez-Camargo, L. N., & Álvarez- Quintero, L. M. (2021, April 1). Cost-effectiveness of nursing interventions for diabetic foot ulcer management: Systematic review. MedUNAB. Universidad Autonoma de Bucaramanga. https://doi.org/10.29375/01237047.3832

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