The effectiveness of pressure-relieving support surfaces

A literature review

Katherine RAE, Stephen ISBEL, Dominic UPTON

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

Abstract

Introduction: Occupational therapists have long‐held a role in prescription and recommendation of pressure support. Although different alternating and static pressure mattresses are available, there is a lack of independent evaluation of the relative effectiveness of these mattresses. Objectives: To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of different types of pressure mattresses and overlays and provide guidance for prescription by occupational therapists. Method: A systematic search was conducted by searching online databases for relevant systematic reviews and randomised‐controlled trials (RCTs) published since 2000. A grey literature search was also conducted to identify further articles. The quality of each RCT was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: A total of 46 studies were included in the review, including 6 systematic reviews. Quality of RCTs varied (4 to 9/11 on PEDro scale), however were predominantly of low to moderate quality. Studies were often under‐powered with methodological flaws. Studies were most frequently conducted in acute or residential care facilities, with no RCTs completed in a community setting. The literature supported the use of pressure‐relieving mattresses in the prevention and healing of pressure injuries. Research was inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of the support surfaces, with some studies finding no significant difference and others with conflicting conclusions. Conclusion: The available evidence is inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of static versus alternating pressure mattresses. Further research is required to investigate what type of mattress provides the best outcomes for clients in a community setting.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)51-51
Number of pages1
JournalAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal
Volume64
Issue numberS2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Pressure
Prescriptions
Residential Facilities
Literature
Research
Databases
Wounds and Injuries
Occupational Therapists

Cite this

@article{9e3350cfda9b4f568fa316bfbe97595b,
title = "The effectiveness of pressure-relieving support surfaces: A literature review",
abstract = "Introduction: Occupational therapists have long‐held a role in prescription and recommendation of pressure support. Although different alternating and static pressure mattresses are available, there is a lack of independent evaluation of the relative effectiveness of these mattresses. Objectives: To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of different types of pressure mattresses and overlays and provide guidance for prescription by occupational therapists. Method: A systematic search was conducted by searching online databases for relevant systematic reviews and randomised‐controlled trials (RCTs) published since 2000. A grey literature search was also conducted to identify further articles. The quality of each RCT was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: A total of 46 studies were included in the review, including 6 systematic reviews. Quality of RCTs varied (4 to 9/11 on PEDro scale), however were predominantly of low to moderate quality. Studies were often under‐powered with methodological flaws. Studies were most frequently conducted in acute or residential care facilities, with no RCTs completed in a community setting. The literature supported the use of pressure‐relieving mattresses in the prevention and healing of pressure injuries. Research was inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of the support surfaces, with some studies finding no significant difference and others with conflicting conclusions. Conclusion: The available evidence is inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of static versus alternating pressure mattresses. Further research is required to investigate what type of mattress provides the best outcomes for clients in a community setting.",
author = "Katherine RAE and Stephen ISBEL and Dominic UPTON",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/1440-1630.12405",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "51--51",
journal = "Australian Occupational Therapy Journal",
issn = "0045-0766",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "S2",

}

The effectiveness of pressure-relieving support surfaces : A literature review. / RAE, Katherine; ISBEL, Stephen; UPTON, Dominic.

In: Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Vol. 64, No. S2, 07.2017, p. 51-51.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of pressure-relieving support surfaces

T2 - A literature review

AU - RAE, Katherine

AU - ISBEL, Stephen

AU - UPTON, Dominic

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - Introduction: Occupational therapists have long‐held a role in prescription and recommendation of pressure support. Although different alternating and static pressure mattresses are available, there is a lack of independent evaluation of the relative effectiveness of these mattresses. Objectives: To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of different types of pressure mattresses and overlays and provide guidance for prescription by occupational therapists. Method: A systematic search was conducted by searching online databases for relevant systematic reviews and randomised‐controlled trials (RCTs) published since 2000. A grey literature search was also conducted to identify further articles. The quality of each RCT was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: A total of 46 studies were included in the review, including 6 systematic reviews. Quality of RCTs varied (4 to 9/11 on PEDro scale), however were predominantly of low to moderate quality. Studies were often under‐powered with methodological flaws. Studies were most frequently conducted in acute or residential care facilities, with no RCTs completed in a community setting. The literature supported the use of pressure‐relieving mattresses in the prevention and healing of pressure injuries. Research was inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of the support surfaces, with some studies finding no significant difference and others with conflicting conclusions. Conclusion: The available evidence is inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of static versus alternating pressure mattresses. Further research is required to investigate what type of mattress provides the best outcomes for clients in a community setting.

AB - Introduction: Occupational therapists have long‐held a role in prescription and recommendation of pressure support. Although different alternating and static pressure mattresses are available, there is a lack of independent evaluation of the relative effectiveness of these mattresses. Objectives: To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of different types of pressure mattresses and overlays and provide guidance for prescription by occupational therapists. Method: A systematic search was conducted by searching online databases for relevant systematic reviews and randomised‐controlled trials (RCTs) published since 2000. A grey literature search was also conducted to identify further articles. The quality of each RCT was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: A total of 46 studies were included in the review, including 6 systematic reviews. Quality of RCTs varied (4 to 9/11 on PEDro scale), however were predominantly of low to moderate quality. Studies were often under‐powered with methodological flaws. Studies were most frequently conducted in acute or residential care facilities, with no RCTs completed in a community setting. The literature supported the use of pressure‐relieving mattresses in the prevention and healing of pressure injuries. Research was inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of the support surfaces, with some studies finding no significant difference and others with conflicting conclusions. Conclusion: The available evidence is inconclusive regarding the relative effectiveness of static versus alternating pressure mattresses. Further research is required to investigate what type of mattress provides the best outcomes for clients in a community setting.

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/oral-presentations-thursday-20-july-2017

U2 - 10.1111/1440-1630.12405

DO - 10.1111/1440-1630.12405

M3 - Meeting Abstract

VL - 64

SP - 51

EP - 51

JO - Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

JF - Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

SN - 0045-0766

IS - S2

ER -