Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Nursing

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Knowledge and attitudes of health professionals towards pressure ulcers at a rehabilitation hospital: a cross-sectional study

  • Bayan Kaddourah1,
  • Amani K Abu-Shaheen2 and
  • Mohamad Al-Tannir2Email author
BMC NursingBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201615:17

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-016-0138-6

Received: 13 September 2015

Accepted: 24 February 2016

Published: 5 March 2016

Abstract

Background

Pressure ulcers are common conditions among hospitalized patients and impose substantial burden on patients and their caregivers. To assess the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals towards PUs prevention. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in the rehabilitation hospital at King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 2014. The study population consisted of nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and physical medicine rehabilitation physicians who have a minimum of at least one year of clinical practice. The survey that was created for use in this study consisted of demographic characteristics, Pressure Ulcers Knowledge Test and Staff Attitude Scale.

Results

The survey was completed by 105 participants of the 120 total eligible staff. The mean knowledge score of correct answers from all participants was 34.1 ± 4.8 (71.5 %). Only 77(73.3 %) participants had a mean knowledge score of ≥ 70 %. The mean attitude score was 30.5 (56.5 %). The study revealed that age and profession factors had a significant relationship with participants’ mean knowledge of PUs prevention (P < 0.001), (P < 0.001) respectively. Moreover, 101 (98.1 %) participants are concerned about PUs prevention in their practices. While, 11 (10.7 %) of participants believe that PUs prevention is a time consuming procedure.

Conclusions

The present study assessed the current knowledge and attitudes of health professionals regarding PUs prevention in an acute rehabilitation hospital. The majority of participants had an average level of knowledge and exhibited unsatisfactory attitudes towards PUs prevention. Increased health professionals awareness may improve their attitudes towards PUs prevention.

Keywords

AttitudesKnowledgePressure UlcersQuality indicator

Background

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are common conditions among hospitalized patients and impose substantial burden on patients and their caregivers. [1, 2]. Almost 1.7 million patients develop PUs per year [3]. Considerable variability in the incidence of PUs between developed and developing countries exists, with an estimated incidence rate of PUs of 8.3 % to 25.1 % in developed countries, and 2.1 % to 31.3 % in developing countries [46].

The incidence of PUs has become a universally known quality indicator in the hospital settings that the patients' quality of life, increases hospital expenses and has an adverse effect on achieving goals of care so much so that their occurrence reflects the quality of care [7, 8]. Thus, the treatment and prevention of ulcers should be considered as a priority, especially where patients are at high risk; such as patients in rehabilitation centers [9].

Lack of knowledge and skills in PUs prevention contributes substantially to the occurrence or deterioration of PUs [10]. Although evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of PUs have been developed extensively and have been supported globally, the problem is still widely spread in health care facilities around the world.

Knowledge, attitudes and skills are necessary to provide effective health care. Literature about the knowledge of health care providers towards PUs prevention is inconsistent. Some studies reveal that the overall knowledge is appropriate while others show that the knowledge about PUs is adequate [11, 12]. Also, despite the positive attitude towards PUs prevention [13], various studies have revealed a gap between theory and practice [3, 14, 15]. Within Saudi healthcare professionals, there is a scarcity of information regarding PUs. Considering the fact that better knowledge and attitudes result in better health care, the entire concerned disciplines should be aware, well informed and proficient at the clinical practice guidelines in order to reduce PUs.

Therefore, this study was undertaken to assess the knowledge and attitudes of the health professionals regarding PUs prevention in an acute rehabilitation hospital.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the rehabilitation hospital at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 2014.

Study population

The study population comprised of all the nurses, physical therapists (PT), occupational therapists (OT), and physical medicine in rehabilitation (PMR) of both genders from the rehabilitation hospital that work directly with adult patients and have at least one year of clinical experience.

Recruitment

Participants were invited for the study by an invitation letter given to the all eligible staff at the rehabilitation hospital. Along with the invitation letter, a copy of the questionnaire and a cover page describing the aim of the study, voluntary participation of the staff and contact information. A trained research coordinator handed the questionnaire to the participants and they were asked to answer the questionnaire and return it back to the research coordinator immediately.

Survey tools

The PUs prevention survey developed for use in this study consisted of demographic characteristics that included gender, age, years of clinical experience, level of education, and profession. In addition, the study included a survey of the knowledge and attitudes of the participants about prevention of PUs.

Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test (PUKT) was used to measure participants' level of knowledge and recommendations for PUs prevention. This test is based on the recommendations proposed in international guidelines and comprises of 47-items to examine the knowledge of participants' on PUs prevention, staging, and wound description. The participants were instructed to select an answer True, False or I Do Not Know. Each correct answer was considered one point. Correct answers corresponding to true assertions were answered with "T" and incorrect ones answered with "F". For incorrect or "NK" answers, the score was zero. The maximum score on the test was 47 and an average knowledge score of ≥ 70 % was considered satisfactory in this study. However, in the original study, participants who achieved 90 % or more of the correct answers were considered to have adequate knowledge [12]. The Staff Attitude Scale was used to obtain feedback on the attitudes of clinical staff regarding PUs prevention. The scale was designed by Moore and Price, it uses a 5-point scoring system ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree [13]. To score, we assigned a numeric value to each response. For example, for "strongly disagree" =5, "disagree" = 4, and so on. However, questions 1, 6, 7, and 11 were reverse scored. For example, "strongly disagree" = 1, and so on. The scores ranged from 11 (most negative attitudes) to 55 (most positive attitudes).

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at KFMC. Participants who met the inclusion criteria were asked to participate in this study; those who agreed to take part gave written informed consent.

Statistical analysis

All data was entered into and analyzed using SPSS version 22.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Categorical variables like profession, age group, level of education, and years of clinical experience were presented as numbers and percentages. Whereas, mean knowledge and attitude score of PUs prevention were expressed as Mean ± SD. Chi-square test, ANOVA and independent sample t-test were used as per condition of categories of variable to determine the mean knowledge score of PUs prevention with respect to the general characteristics of participants. P - Value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

To improve power, we collapsed the Likert scale responses into two variables: combination of (“strongly agree” and “agree”) and combination of (“uncertain”, “disagree” and “strongly disagree”).

Results

The survey was completed by 105 participants of the 120 total eligible staff who provide direct bedside care for patients from the rehabilitation hospital, and a response rate of 87.8 % was achieved. The demographic profile of respondents is presented in Table 1. The majority of participants were females 68 (64.8 %). Age ranged from 21 to 45 years, with a mean age of 37.5 ± 6.3 years. The majority had a bachelor’s degree 93 (88.6 %) with a mean years of clinical experience of 12.2 ± 7.3. Sixty-five (61.9 %) participants were nurses.
Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Characteristics

Number of Participants (%)

Mean age years

37.5 ± 6.3

Median age years

35.0 [21-45]

Profession

 

Nurse

65 (61.9)

OT

19 (18.1)

PT

14 (13.3)

PMR

7 (6.7)

Education level

 

Diploma

2 (1.9)

Bachelor

93 (88.6)

Masters

3 (2.9)

Ph.D.

7 (6.7)

Mean years of clinical experience

12.2±7.3

Median years of clinical experience

10.2[1-25]

Data are presented either as mean (±SD), median [Min-Max] or actual numbers (%). OT: occupational therapists

PMR: Physical Medicine in Rehabilitation

PT: physical therapists

The possible score of the PUKT ranges from 0 to 47. The mean score of correct answers for all participants was 34.1(71.5 %) (SD = ±4.8, Min-Max = 18–44). Only 77(73.3 %) of participant had a mean percentage score of ≥ 70 %.

The statistical analysis of the participants’ demographics using ANOVA revealed that there was no significant relationship between participants’ means knowledge scores of PUs prevention and their education level, or years of clinical experience. In contrast, age and profession had a significant relationship with participants’ mean knowledge of PUs prevention (P < 0.001), (P < 0.001) respectively (Table 2).
Table 2

Mean knowledge score according to the geneal characteristics of personal profile

 

Knowledge

p– value

Mean (%)

Overall

34.1(71.5)

---

Profession

 

<0.001

PMR

37.2 (79.3)

Nursing

35.2 (75.0)

OT

33.6 (71.7)

PT

27.5 (58.5)

Age (years)

 

< 0.001

≤30

37.7 (80.4)

> 30

32.9 (70.0)

Education level

 

0.092

Bachelor

33.8 (72.1)

Diploma

36.0 (77.0)

Masters

31.6 (63.0)

Ph.D.

37.2 (79.3)

Years of clinical experience

 

0.323

≤10

34.9 (74.3)

>10

33.6 (71.6)

Data are presented as mean and mean score percentage

OT: occupational therapists

PMR: Physical Medicine in Rehabilitation

PT: physical therapists

The lowest possible score (negative attitudes) in the attitudes, section was 11 with a highest possible score of 55. The participants demonstrated unsatisfactory attitudes towards PUs prevention. The mean attitudes score was 30.5 (56.5 %) (SD = ±4.8, Min-Max = 19–43).

The results presented in Table 3 revealed that 101 (98.1 %) participants are concerned about PUs prevention in their practices. While, 11 (10.7 %) participants reported that PUs prevention is a time consuming procedure. Furthermore, two (1.9 %) participants reported that PUs treatment is a greater priority than PUs prevention. Only seven (6.8 %) participants showed less interest in PUs prevention than other aspects of care.
Table 3

Participant’s attitudes towards pressure ulcer prevention

 

Agreed

n (%)

Disagreed

n (%)

All patients are at potential risk of developing pressure ulcers

74 (71.8)

29 (28.2)

Pressure ulcer prevention is time consuming for me to carry out

11 (10.7)

92 (89.3)

In my opinion, patients tend not to get as many pressure ulcers nowadays

52 (50.5)

51 (49.5)

I do not need to concern myself with pressure ulcer prevention in my practice

2 (1.9)

101 (98.1)

Pressure ulcer treatment is a greater priority than pressure ulcer prevention

2 (1.9)

101 (98.1)

Continuous assessment of patients will give an accurate account of their pressure ulcer risk

101 (98.1)

2 (1.9)

Most pressure ulcers can be avoided

98 (95.1)

5 (4.9)

I am less interested in pressure ulcer prevention than other aspects of care

7 (6.8)

96 (93.2)

My clinical judgment is better than any pressure ulcer risk assessment tool available to me

8 (7.8)

95 (92.2)

In comparison with other areas of care, pressure ulcer prevention is a low priority for me

5 (4.9)

98 (95.1)

Pressure ulcer risk assessment should be regularly carried out on all patients during their stay in hospital

100 (97.1)

3 (2.9)

Data are presented as number and percentage.

Approximately 95.1 % of participants agreed that PUs could be avoided. Moreover, 100 (95.1 %) participants agreed that PUs risk assessment must be regularly carried out on all patients during their stay in hospital.

Our results indicate that PTs were the least interested among 'other' professionals in PUs prevention than other aspects of patient care and that PUs prevention is a low priority for them (p < 0.001), (p < 0.001) respectively. While nurses and OTs reported that their clinical judgment is better than PUs risk assessment in comparison to other areas of care (P = 0.041). Moreover, the study showed that there was no significant relationship between participants’ attitudes towards PUs prevention and their education level, years of clinical experience, and age (Table 4).
Table 4

General characteristics of personal profile affecting attitudes of participants

Items

Variables

Agree

n (%)

Disagree

n (%)

p– value

I am less interested in pressure ulcer prevention than other aspects of care

Profession

  

< 0.001

Nursing

0(0.0)

64 (66.7)

OT

3 (42.9)

15 (15.6)

PMR

0(0.0)

7 (7.3)

PT

4 (57.1)

10 (10.4)

My clinical judgment is better than any pressure ulcer risk assessment tool available to me

Profession

  

0.041

Nursing

3 (37.5)

61 (64.2)

OT

3 (37.5)

15 (15.8)

PMR

2 (25)

5 (5.3)

PT

0(0.0)

14 (14.7)

In comparison with other areas of care, pressure ulcer prevention is a low priority for me

Profession

  

< 0.001

Nursing

0(0.0)

64 (65.3)

OT

1 (20)

17 (17.3)

PMR

0(0.0)

7 (7.1)

PT

4 (80)

10 (10.2)

Data are presented as number and percentage

OT: occupational therapists

PMR: Physical Medicine in Rehabilitation

PT: physical therapists

Discussion

Adequate knowledge about PUs prevention is crucial for health care staff. Such knowledge will help frame the decision of whether or not the patient is at higher risk and need prevention. It will also assist in knowing what type of prevention should be used, and how should it be practiced. Although scientific advances in health care guidelines and recommendations for PUs prevention are available, the problem is still widespread in health care facilities around the world. This study aimed to assess the current knowledge and attitudes of the health professionals towards PUs prevention in an acute rehabilitation hospital at KFMC.

The results of this study reveal that the knowledge of participants concerning PUs prevention was average. We used a ≥ 70 % cut-off point to identify participants having sufficient knowledge; at this cut-off point, 77(73.3 %) participants met the criterion. A greater cut-off point would have led to more participants being considered not having adequate knowledge, which highlights the need to update the health professional’s knowledge on current guidelines and recommendations for PUs prevention. The mean percentage score of correct answers was 71.5 % for all participants, 79.3 % for PMRs, 75.0 % for nurses, 71.7 % for OTs, and 58.5 % for PTs. It was noted from our results that nurses showed good mean percentage score of correct answers; this is especially important as good knowledge and practice of nurses have its own significant contribution for decreasing prevalence of PUs; because, even if the prevention of PUs is a multidisciplinary responsibility, usually nurses play a major role in PUs prevention. Likewise, a study conducted by Pieper et al, using the same knowledge scale showed that the mean percentage of correct answers by 75 intensive care unit nurses from two American hospitals was 71.3 % [16]. In the United States, a study of nurses from Montana used the preliminary version of the Pieper’s PUKT; found that the percentage of correct answers was 78 % [17]. While some studies have showed a good level of knowledge (70–80 %) among nurses [1822], others have shown limited knowledge with only ≤ 50 % of nurses knowing half of the recommendations [1, 23, 24]. Similarly, a study conducted in Bangladesh indicated that the overall nurses’ knowledge on PUs prevention was found to be 57.79 % [25]. In Alexandria, Egypt, a study conducted by Enein et al. in one of the largest health insurance hospital showed that, the overall mean percentage score for nurses were below the minimum acceptable level [26], which would be explained by lack of learning resources for nurses to update their knowledge.

Younger age group participants significantly have higher mean of knowledge scores than older age group, however no significant relationship between participants’ mean of knowledge scores of PUs prevention and their education level or years of clinical experience was found. The findings are comparable to Pieper and Mott who did not find any association between educational level and knowledge [15, 27]. Knowledge on PUs prevention and treatment were known to be affected by certain individual and educational characteristics as revealed by studies on nurses and nursing students’ [11, 16].

Attitude is considered an essential individual characteristic as it determines individual expectations [28]. Ajzen and Fishbein stated in their study that an individual’s likelihood of carrying out a positive behavior is influenced by a positive attitude [29]. This statement is supported by Champion, Leach and Hicks who showed the positive impact of more positive attitudes on the quality of nursing practice [30, 31].

In this study, the participants demonstrated unsatisfactory attitudes towards PUs prevention with a mean attitude score of 30.5(56.5 %). A study conducted by Beeckman et al. [32], about the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards PUsprevention in a Belgian hospital showed that the knowledge of nurses about PUs prevention was poor and only half of the nurses showed attitudes scores of equal to or greater than 75 % with a mean attitude score of 71.3 % [32]. In addition, our results showed that11 (10.7 %) of participants believe that PUs prevention is a time consuming procedure and among the health care professionals, nurses and OTs reported that that their clinical judgment is better in other areas of health care than use of available PUs risk assessment tool.

As PUs development during hospitalization is an important healthcare quality indicator, the adoption of a useful prevention system could eliminate the problem. Successful PUs prevention depends on health professionals’ knowledge and attitudes, especially for health professionals who provide direct patient care. It is necessary to understand that individual factors are known to influence a health care professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and the use of evidence-based practice; hence, there is an urgent need for rehabilitation hospitals around Saudi Arabia to formulate strategies and relevant policies in order to combat the socio-economic burden of this problem. The results of this study could be used as a guide for making a strategic plan directed at adopting preventative measures for PUs that can improve the quality of health care services largely. We would recommend that a further follow up on research looking into ways to make the best use of education for the health professionals working in this critical area is carried out.

Conclusions

The present study assessed the current knowledge and attitudes of health professionals regarding PUs prevention in an acute rehabilitation hospital. The majority of participants had an average level of knowledge about PUs prevention; they exhibited unsatisfactory attitudes towards PUs prevention. Increased health professionals awareness may improve their attitudes towards PUs prevention.

Abbreviations

PUs: 

Pressure Ulcers

KFMC: 

King Fahad Medical City

PUKT: 

Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test

OT: 

occupational therapists

PMR: 

Physical Medicine in Rehabilitation

PT: 

physical therapists

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Ms. Jenny Gray for her assistance and linguistic review for this study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Ambulatory Care Centre, Executive Administration of Nursing Services, King Fahad Medical City
(2)
Research Center, King Fahad Medical City

References

  1. Nuru N, Zewdu F, Amsalu S, Mehretie Y. Knowledge and practice of nurses towards prevention of pressure ulcer and associated factors in Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Gedamu H, Hailu M, Amano A. Prevelence and associated factors of pressure ulcer among hospitalized patients at Felegehiwot Referal Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Advances in Nursing. 2014;1–8.Google Scholar
  3. Pieper B. Mechanical Forces: Pressure, Shear and Friction. In: R. Bryant R, Nix D, editors. Acute and chronic wounds: Current Management Concepts. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby: Elsevier; 2007. p. 205–34.Google Scholar
  4. Bours GJ, Halfens RJG, Huyer Abu-Saad H, Grol RT. Prevalence, prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: descriptive study in 89 institutions in the Netherlands. Res Nurs Health. 2002;25:99–110.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hulsenboom M, Bours G, Halfens R. Knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention: a cross-sectional and comparative study among nurses. BMC Nursing. 2007;9:6–2.Google Scholar
  6. Suriadi, Sanada H, Sugama J, Kitagawa A, Thigpen B, Kinosita S, et al. Risk factors in the development of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit in Pontianak, Indonesia. Int Wound J. 2007;4:208–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Lindbloom E, Brandt J, Hough L, Meadows S. Elder Mistreatment in the Nursing Home: A Systematic Review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2007;8:610–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gupta N, Loong B, Leong G. Comparing and contrasting knowledge of pressure ulcer assessment, prevention and management in people with spinal cord injury among nursing staff working in two metropolitan spinal units and rehabilitation medicine training specialists in a three-way comparison. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:159–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hopkins A, Dealey C, Bale S, Defloor T, Worboys F. Patient stories of living with a pressure ulcer. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:345–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gunningberg L. Pressure ulcer prevention: evaluation of an education programme for Swedish nurses. J Wound Care. 2004;13:85–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pancorbo-Hidalgo P, García-Fernández F, López-Medina I, López-Ortega J. Pressure ulcer care in Spain: nurses? knowledge and clinical practice. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:327–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Källman U, Suserud B. Knowledge, attitudes and practice among nursing staff concerning pressure ulcer prevention and treatment - a survey in a Swedish healthcare setting. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009;23:334–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore Z, Price P. Nurses' attitudes, behaviours and perceived barriers towards pressure ulcer prevention. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:942–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Maylor M, Torrance C. Pressure sore survey. Part 2: nurses' knowledge. Int Wound J. 2007;8:49–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Rodgers S. A study of the utilization of research in practice and the influence of education. Nurse Educ Today. 2000;20:279–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pieper B, Mattern JC. Critical care nurses’ knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention, stating and description. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1997;43:22–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Zulkowski K, Ayello E, Wexler S. Certification and Education. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20:34–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bostrom J, Kenneth H. Staff nurse knowledge and perceptions about prevention of pressure sores. Dermat Nurs. 1992;4:365–7.Google Scholar
  19. Beitz JM, Fey J. Perceived need for education vs. actual knowledge of pressure ulcer care in a hospital nursing staff. Med Surg Nurs. 1998;7:293–301.Google Scholar
  20. Provo B, Piacentine L, Dean-Barr S. Practice versus knowledge when it comes to pressure ulcer prevention. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 1997;24:265–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell L. Knowledge and practice en pressure area care. Prof Nurse. 1996;11:301–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Anthony D, Mockridge J. Nurses’ knowledge about pressure sore treatment and healing. Nurs Stand. 1999;13:68–71.Google Scholar
  23. Egglink M, Halfens RJ. Knowledge, beliefs and use of nursing methods in preventing pressure sores in Dutch hospitals. Int J Nurs Stud. 1995;32:16–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Rengin A, Merdiye S. Pressure ulcer prevention and management strategies in Turkey. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2005;32:230–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Islam S. Nurses' Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice regarding Pressure Ulcer Prevention for Hospitalized Patients at Rajshahi Medical College Hospital in Bangladesh. 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Enein NYAE, Zaghloul AA. Nurses’ knowledge of prevention and management of pressure ulcer at a Health Insurance Hospital in Alexandria. Int J Nurs Pract. 2011;17:262–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pieper B, Mottern M. Nurses’ knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention, staging, and description. Adv Wound Care. 1995;8:34–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Petty R, Cacioppo J. Attitudes and persuasions: classic and contemporary approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1996. 3–37.Google Scholar
  29. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP, editors. The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005. p. 173–221.Google Scholar
  30. Champion V, Leach A. Variables related to research utilization in nursing: An empirical investigation. J Adv Nurs. 1989;14:705–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hicks C. A study of nurses’ attitudes towards research: a factor analytic approach. J Adv Nurs. 1996;23:373–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Beeckman D, Defloor T, Schoonhoven L, Vanderwee K. Knowledge and Attitudes of Nurses on Pressure Ulcer Prevention: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study in Belgian Hospitals. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2011;8:166–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kaddourah et al. 2016

Advertisement