4.3 Article

Feelings of powerlessness in individuals with either venous or diabetic foot ulcers

期刊

JOURNAL OF TISSUE VIABILITY
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 109-114

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2014.04.005

关键词

Feelings; Self-concept; Quality of life; Leg ulcer; Varicose ulcer; Diabetic foot

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To assess feelings of powerlessness in patients with either venous or diabetic foot ulcers. Methods: This was an exploratory, descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted from May 2010 to August 2012. Two hundred adult patients with either venous leg ulcers (N = 100) or diabetic foot ulcers (N = 100) were consecutively recruited from an outpatient wound care clinic of a university hospital in the city of Sao Paulo (Brazil). Eligibility criteria included patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes and foot ulcers, and those with venous leg ulcers and ankle-arm index between 0.8 and 1.0. Patients unable to respond to a questionnaire due to physical or cognitive deficit were excluded. Two instruments were used for data collection: a questionnaire assessing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and the Powerlessness Assessment Tool (PAT) for adult patients. Results: Most patients were women, aged 60-70 years, and smokers. Fifty-seven patients (57%) with diabetes had had foot ulcers for 3-6 years and 55 (55%) patients had had venous ulcers for 7-10 years. Wound odor and exudate were present in most ulcers. The total PAT score was significantly higher (P=0.002) for patients with foot ulcers (mean, 57.10) than for patients with venous ulcers (mean, 55.12). The highest mean scores for patients with venous and diabetic foot ulcers were 58.09 and 58.10, respectively, on the self-perception of decision-making capacity domain. Conclusion: Patients with venous and diabetic foot ulcers had very strong feelings of powerlessness, but these feelings were significantly stronger in those with foot ulcerations. (C) 2014 Tissue Viability Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据