Prevalence of pressure ulcers in Canadian healthcare settings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although statistics regarding the number of pressure ulcers in the US and other countries are available, little information is known about the number of individuals in Canada who have pressure ulcers. Such information is important to assess the scope and healthcare costs of pressure ulcers and develop public policies. To obtain estimated pressure ulcer prevalence rates in Canada, existing data (gathered between 1990 and 2003) from different healthcare settings across the country were obtained from peer-reviewed published studies and from unpublished studies provided by individuals and pressure ulcer support surface manufacturers. Methods used to gather and report prevalence data in each study were critically appraised using a modified version of published criteria. Retrospective chart audit studies that did not involve direct patient assessment were excluded. The data included information from 18 acute care facilities involving 4,831 patients, 23 non-acute care facilities with 3,390 patients, 19 mixed healthcare settings with 4,200 patients, and five community care agencies that surveyed 1,681 patients. Estimates of pressure ulcer prevalence were 25.1% (95% Confidence Interval, 23.8% to 26.3%) for acute care settings, 29.9% (95% Confidence Interval, 28.3% to 31.4%) in non-acute care settings, 22.1% (95% Confidence Interval, 20.9% to 23.4%) in mixed health settings, and 15.1% (95% Confidence Interval, 13.4% to 16.8%) in community care. The overall estimate of the prevalence of pressure ulcers in all healthcare institutions across Canada was 26.0% (95% Confidence Interval, 25.2% to 26.8%). The Canadian prevalence estimates differed among the healthcare settings and were higher than those reported in the US and the Netherlands. Although additional studies are needed, the data suggest that pressure ulcers are a significant concern in all healthcare settings in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".