Comparative Effectiveness of Active and Reactive Mattresses in Pressure Injury Healing for Older People in Their Own Homes: A Pragmatic Equivalence Randomised-Controlled Study.

Katherine E Rae, Judith Barker, Dominic Upton, Stephen Isbel
Author Information
  1. Katherine E Rae: Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, 11 Kirinari St, Bruce, Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia. ORCID
  2. Judith Barker: Canberra Health Services, Canberra Hospital, Yamba Dr, Garran, ACT 2605, Australia.
  3. Dominic Upton: Faculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, Brinkin, NT 0909, Australia.
  4. Stephen Isbel: Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, 11 Kirinari St, Bruce, Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia. ORCID

Abstract

: Pressure injuries are an ongoing problem commonly managed with the prescription of pressure mattresses. There is conflicting research about the comparable effectiveness of the two types of pressure mattresses, active and reactive. This, coupled with technological advances and an updated understanding of pressure aetiology, means decision-making when prescribing pressure mattresses is complicated. : A pragmatic approach was used to design an equivalence randomised-controlled trial investigating the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive pressure mattresses in a community setting from a wound healing perspective as well as from a user acceptability perspective. : Participants with an existing pressure injury were provided with an active or reactive mattress for wound healing, with wound stages assessed using photography. Usual clinical care was provided based on the protocols of the health care service, including nursing and occupational therapy input. Participants were monitored for the healing of their existing pressure injuries, using the Revised Photographic Wound Assessment Tool. User acceptability feedback was provided through surveys, including impact on comfort, pain levels and bed mobility. An equivalence design was used for data analysis to determine if the surfaces were comparable. : Twelve participants completed the study, which found that people on active mattresses healed 11.71 days (95% CI -55.97-31.78 days) quicker than people on reactive mattresses; however, the small sample size meant that a definitive determination could not be made. Users found bed mobility more challenging, and pain levels decreased, regardless of mattress type. : A pragmatic methodology is imperative for research in this field due to the complexity of pressure injury healing. Researchers exploring multi-faceted conditions should consider a pragmatic design to ensure transferability of results to the clinical setting. The results from this study were inconclusive when determining the equivalence of active and reactive mattresses due to the small sample size. When choosing a mattress, prescribers need to consider user preferences and mattress features to ensure user acceptability.

Keywords

References

  1. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013 Aug;26(8):360-73 [PMID: 23860221]
  2. J Wound Care. 2018 Aug 2;27(8):467-474 [PMID: 30086254]
  3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 10;5:CD013620 [PMID: 33969911]
  4. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017 May/Jun;44(3):221-227 [PMID: 28328647]
  5. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Feb;26(2):192-6 [PMID: 20857339]
  6. J Wound Care. 2024 Jun 1;33(Sup6):S13-S18 [PMID: 38843048]
  7. Trials. 2017 Mar 20;18(1):132 [PMID: 28320482]
  8. BMJ. 2015 May 08;350:h2147 [PMID: 25956159]
  9. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 10;5:CD013624 [PMID: 33969896]
  10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:14-20 [PMID: 28502811]
  11. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000 Apr;46(4):20-6, 28-30 [PMID: 10788924]
  12. Aust Health Rev. 2021 Mar;45(2):135-142 [PMID: 33334417]
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:99-107 [PMID: 28502810]
  14. Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jan;62(594):10-1 [PMID: 22520661]
  15. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Sep;97:105-113 [PMID: 31234104]
  16. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Jan;101:103449 [PMID: 31706155]
  17. Age Ageing. 1989 Mar;18(2):89-95 [PMID: 2658501]
  18. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Nov;52(11):1754-74 [PMID: 26231383]
  19. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:92-98 [PMID: 28694123]
  20. Int Wound J. 2019 Jun;16(3):634-640 [PMID: 30693644]
  21. Nephrology (Carlton). 2020 Jul;25(7):513-517 [PMID: 32147926]
  22. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 2;374(22):2175-81 [PMID: 27248626]
  23. Wound Repair Regen. 2009 Mar-Apr;17(2):287-90 [PMID: 19320898]
  24. J Trauma Stress. 2008 Oct;21(5):433-9 [PMID: 18956449]
  25. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):178-206 [PMID: 28176294]
  26. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Nov;91:13-22 [PMID: 28716504]
  27. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 7;5:CD013622 [PMID: 33999463]
  28. BMJ. 2006 Jun 17;332(7555):1413 [PMID: 16740530]
  29. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):943-954 [PMID: 31313412]
  30. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):155-177 [PMID: 28405907]
  31. Int Wound J. 2022 Mar;19(3):692-704 [PMID: 34382331]
  32. Nurs Times. 1985 Nov 27-Dec 3;81(48):49-55 [PMID: 3853163]
  33. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022 Jun;130:104191 [PMID: 35436596]
  34. Surg Clin North Am. 2020 Aug;100(4):695-705 [PMID: 32681870]
  35. J Tissue Viability. 2024 Feb;33(1):27-42 [PMID: 38142199]
  36. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Dec;24(6):682-701 [PMID: 14662274]
  37. Nurs Outlook. 2018 Sep;66(5):446-454 [PMID: 30131168]
  38. Health Technol Assess. 2019 Sep;23(52):1-176 [PMID: 31559948]
  39. Br J Community Nurs. 2019 Mar 1;24(Sup3):S25-S27 [PMID: 30817188]
  40. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:7-13 [PMID: 28549929]
  41. N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):465-475 [PMID: 28767357]
  42. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Sep;121:103998 [PMID: 34237439]
  43. Am J Crit Care. 2018 Nov;27(6):471-476 [PMID: 30385538]
  44. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2022 Mar;29(1):185-194 [PMID: 34100153]
  45. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:173-180 [PMID: 28502808]
  46. Health Educ Behav. 2013 Jun;40(3):257-65 [PMID: 23709579]
  47. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;25(1):7-29 [PMID: 24220629]
  48. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4 [PMID: 18537788]

Grants

  1. No Grant Number/Act Health

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pressuremattresses:activereactivehealingpragmaticwoundmattressresearchdesignequivalenceuseracceptabilityinjuryprovidedPressureinjuriescomparableeffectivenessusedcommunitysettingperspectiveParticipantsexistingusingclinicalcareincludingpainlevelsbedmobilitystudyfoundpeopledayssmallsamplesizedueconsiderensureresultsongoingproblemcommonlymanagedprescriptionconflictingtwotypescoupledtechnologicaladvancesupdatedunderstandingaetiologymeansdecision-makingprescribingcomplicatedapproachrandomised-controlledtrialinvestigatingcomparativewellstagesassessedphotographyUsualbasedprotocolshealthservicenursingoccupationaltherapyinputmonitoredRevisedPhotographicWoundAssessmentToolUserfeedbacksurveysimpactcomfortdataanalysisdeterminesurfacesTwelveparticipantscompletedhealed117195%CI-5597-3178quickerhowevermeantdefinitivedeterminationmadeUserschallengingdecreasedregardlesstypemethodologyimperativefieldcomplexityResearchersexploringmulti-facetedconditionstransferabilityinconclusivedeterminingchoosingprescribersneedpreferencesfeaturesComparativeEffectivenessActiveReactiveMattressesInjuryHealingOlderPeopleHomes:PragmaticEquivalenceRandomised-ControlledStudy

Similar Articles

Cited By