4.6 Review

The effectiveness of nursing interventions in adherence to self-care for preventing venous ulcer recurrence: A systematic literature review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14454

Keywords

adherence; nursing interventions; recurrence; self-care; venous ulcer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Venous ulcers have a significant impact on the global population, with high recurrence rates. Interventions promoting self-care, such as compression therapy and educational methods, are effective in preventing recurrence.
Venous ulcers affect up to 3% of the global population, with a high impact on economies and quality of life. This is exacerbated by its recurrence rates, which reach 70% at 12 months after healing. The perpetuation of these cycles of healing and recurrence is not interrupted or even attenuated by the self-care activities recommended and directed toward their prevention. In this context, we sought to identify the effectiveness of interventions that promote adherence to self-care to prevent venous ulcer recurrence. In August 2022, we conducted a literature search via EBSCO in the following databases: CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE Complete, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were researched in the form of randomised controlled trials or systematic literature reviews, and 99 studies were identified. During the different times of selection, four studies met the defined inclusion criteria and were included. As the main conclusions, the emphasis goes to the importance of the use of compression and the greater effectiveness of higher compression classes for the prevention of recurrence. Different educational methodologies seem to be important to increase knowledge about prevention, specifically regarding the aetiology of recurrence and the implementation of prevention 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available