The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
An overview of co-morbidities and the development of pressure ulcers among older adults
Jaul, E., Barron, J., Rosenzweig, J. P., & Menczel, J. (2018) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0997-7 · Cited by 373
Review of the Current Management of Pressure Ulcers
Boyko, T. V., Longaker, M. T., & Yang, G. P. (2018) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2016.0697 · Cited by 316
Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: A systematic review
Alderden, J., Rondinelli, J., Pepper, G., Cummins, M., & Whitney, J. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.03.012 · Cited by 258
Fragility Fracture Nursing: Holistic Care and Management of the Orthogeriatric Patient
(2018) · Perspectives in Nursing Management and Care for Older Adults · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76681-2 · Cited by 40
Lechner, A., Lahmann, N., Lichterfeld‐Kottner, A., Müller‐Werdan, U., Blume‐Peytavi, U., & Kottner, J. (2019) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.204 · Cited by 28
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.