Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework

Open access
Coleman, Susanne, Nixon, Jane, Keen, Justin, Wilson, Lyn, McGinnis, Elizabeth, Dealey, Carol, Stubbs, Nikki, Farrin, Amanda, Dowding, Dawn, Schols, Jos M.G.A., Cuddigan, Janet, Berlowitz, Dan, Jude, Edward, Vowden, Peter, Schoonhoven, Lisette, Bader, Dan L., Gefen, Amit, Oomens, Cees W.J., Nelson, E. Andrea·2014·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim: This paper discusses the critical determinants of pressure ulcer development and proposes a new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. Background: Recent work to develop and validate a new evidence‐based pressure ulcer risk assessment framework was undertaken. This formed part of a Pressure UlceR Programme Of re SE arch (RP‐PG‐0407‐10056), funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The foundation for the risk assessment component incorporated a systematic review and a consensus study that highlighted the need to propose a new conceptual framework. Design: Discussion Paper. Data Sources: The new conceptual framework links evidence from biomechanical, physiological and epidemiological evidence, through use of data from a systematic review (search conducted March 2010), a consensus study (conducted December 2010–2011) and an international expert group meeting (conducted December 2011). Implications for Nursing: A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework incorporating key physiological and biomechanical components and their impact on internal strains, stresses and damage thresholds is proposed. Direct and key indirect causal factors suggested in a theoretical causal pathway are mapped to the physiological and biomechanical components of the framework. The new proposed conceptual framework provides the basis for understanding the critical determinants of pressure ulcer development and has the potential to influence risk assessment guidance and practice. It could also be used to underpin future research to explore the role of individual risk factors conceptually and operationally. Conclusion: By integrating existing knowledge from epidemiological, physiological and biomechanical evidence, a theoretical causal pathway and new conceptual framework are proposed with potential implications for practice and research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.12405

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Coleman, S., Nixon, J., Keen, J., Wilson, L., McGinnis, E., Dealey, C., Stubbs, N., Farrin, A., Dowding, D., Schols, J. M. G. A., Cuddigan, J., Berlowitz, D., Jude, E., Vowden, P., Schoonhoven, L., Bader, D. L., Gefen, A., Oomens, C. W. J., & Nelson, E. A.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-31
Volume
70
Issue
10
Pages
2222-2234
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2165026544
Cited by
379
References
0
FWCI
65.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jan.12405
The paper
Coleman, S., Nixon, J., Keen, J., Wilson, L., McGinnis, E., Dealey, C., Stubbs, N., Farrin, A., Dowding, D., Schols, J. M. G. A., Cuddigan, J., Berlowitz, D., Jude, E., Vowden, P., Schoonhoven, L., Bader, D. L., Gefen, A., Oomens, C. W. J., & Nelson, E. A. (2014). A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12405

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.