4.3 Article

Conceptual Framework for Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis Based on Scoping Review and Expert Consensus Process

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOUND OSTOMY AND CONTINENCE NURSING
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 256-261

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000764

Keywords

Conceptual framework; Explanatory model; Incontinence-associated dermatitis; Scoping review

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IAD has been studied in recent years, and this research proposes that liquid fecal material, exposure to urine and stool, and bacterial contaminated urine are etiological factors for IAD development. The study suggests two pathophysiological mechanisms and eight main risk factors to improve the quality of care for patients with or at risk of IAD.
Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) has been studied over the last decades, but gaps in the knowledge related to its identification, etiological agents, and risk factors remain. We carried out a scoping review about IAD that included systematic reviews, experimental, and observational studies about IAD and its potential risk factors. We retrieved 24 articles that described 100 potential risk factors and which were synthesized by the authors and proposed to a panel of experts. Panelists used a structured process of consensus development to create a conceptual framework of factors associated with IAD. This framework proposes that liquid fecal material, when combined with exposure to urine and stool, and bacterial contaminated urine are etiological factors for development of IAD. The framework also proposes 2 pathophysiological mechanisms and 8 main risk factors for IAD development. The proposed model could improve the quality of care for patients with or at risk of IAD, assisting healthcare professionals to identify at-risk patients, diagnose the type of lesion, and establish adequate and effective prevention and treatment measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available