Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40555229›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2025

Investigation of Nurse's Pressure Ulcer Management Self-Efficacy Status and Influencing Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Gülistan Yurdagül

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gülistan YurdagülHealth Care Services Department, School of Health Services, Kilis 7 Aralık University, Kilis, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6941-8240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to examine the self-efficacy levels of nurses in the management of pressure ulcers (PUs) and the demographic and professional factors affecting this. This cross-sectional and descriptive study was conducted with 436 nurses. Data were collected between January and April 2024, using the Nurse Identification Form and the Pressure Ulcer Management Self-Efficacy Scale (PUM-SES). In the study, the total mean score of the PUM-SES was found to be 58.77 ± 18.07 (min-max: 0-100). The mean scores of the sub-dimensions of the scale were assessment 57.54 ± 20.60, planning 59.14 ± 21.15, supervision 57.16 ± 21.86, decision making 60.02 ± 19.19 (min-max: 0-100). In addition, it was observed that the total scores of the PUM-SES were significantly higher for nurses who were 34 years old and older, had worked in the unit for 3 years or more and worked in intensive care clinics. Findings showed that nurses generally had a moderate PUM-SES score. Sociodemographic variables explained only 3.9% of the total variance. Age was significant in the sub-dimensions of surveillance (β = 0.241, p = 0.001) and decision-making (β = 0.162, p = 0.03); while the unit worked had a significant and negative effect on all sub-dimensions and the total score (β = -0.159, p = 0.001). The results obtained suggest that professional experience and the working environment may have an effect on the cognitive competence of nurses. Therefore, it is recommended that training programs be developed to support nurses' decision-making processes and professional competence.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceNursing Staff, HospitalPressure UlcerSelf EfficacyAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairescarenursepressure ulcerself‐efficacy

Identifiers

PMID40555229
PMCPMC12187174

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.