FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2777997780> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2777997780 endingPage "312" @default.
• W2777997780 startingPage "311" @default.
• W2777997780 abstract "In the UK alone, more than £5 billion is spent each year on treating leg ulcers and other types of wounds,1 yet the number of people chronically affected by non-healing wounds continues to rise.2 As the prevalence of chronic illnesses such as diabetes increases,3 so will the wounds associated with them. Whilst some risk factors for wounds are fixed (eg, age and sex),4 the majority are linked to behavioural lifestyle factors such as exercise and smoking. Indeed, more than 60% of the risk factors for chronic illnesses are due to modifiable factors5 and health psychology is fundamental to understand how psychology contributes directly and indirectly to the cause, progression, experience and outcomes of any physical illness.6 Moreover, early detection is an important predictor of recovery from wounds7 so patient empowerment and good staff–patient relationships are key for successful wound management. Research has identified a range of problems that exist as a result of having a wound, but what we have yet to fathom are complex ways in which causative factors interact to produce a more or less favourable outcome for patients. Regardless of the origin of the wound, whether it is a venous leg ulcer or a diabetic foot ulcer, shared factors must determine different wound outcomes. We know that some people appear genetically susceptible to non-healing or therapy-resistant wounds due to individual differences in their immunity and healing rate.8, 9 Other individual differences such as personality traits could also predict poor wound healing. For example, low conscientiousness has been found to be the best predictor of disease burden, progression, and severity10 in various illnesses including diabetes and skin problems.11 It is likely that conscientiousness holds its dominant influence over health outcomes as high levels of this trait acts as a protective factor against stress,12, 13 an influential factor in delayed wound healing.14 Behavioural influences on illness outcomes include patient control and coping mechanisms such as self-examination and help seeking.15, 16 However, the very language that we use ‘wound care’ and the focus of prior research suggests symptoms to be managed by a third party rather than empowering the patient to self-care. A joint review of the guidelines for treating venous leg ulcers highlights that patients and their caregivers can play a proactive role in self-care but negligible reference is made to how they might be empowered to do this.17 Wound research has failed to recognise that not only does physical health influence our mental health but also our psychology affects our physical health. Through interdisciplinary research we can turn the way that we think about wounds on its head by moving away from the traditional nurse-led (symptom management) approach to a more patient-centred approach. Our aim is to lobby for the adoption of a novel approach to understand the complex relationships among various underlying causes of different health and illness outcomes for people with wounds. While we have been debating this biopsychosocial approach to health in the literature for more than 40 years,18 we are still some way off translating our academic discussions into new advances in wound treatment. A radical transformation away from the overriding biomedical paradigm is the likely solution to these global wound management issues. While nominally acknowledging the mind–body connection, research currently fails to comprehend, or translate into practice, the complex inter-relationships that exist among the diverse factors associated with wounds. There is an appreciation that multiple factors contribute to wound care issues but there is little clarity about the mechanism of that interaction. Currently, little has been explored on the psychological and cognitive mechanisms that influence the wound onset, and we know even less about individual differences in susceptibility to non-healing wounds. Engagement with the biopsychosocial approach18, 19 would allow for a comprehensive and person-centred approach to the complexity of the mind–body connection. This timely, critical, and comprehensive approach to chronic wound management is ambitious, yet leads to new concepts that would pave the way for novel regimes, fresh ideas, and modern treatment packages for patients with wounds. Based on health psychology principles, this can be achieved through new research that guides the organisation and delivery of multidisciplinary health services so that the maximum benefit is felt by patients, the community, and the overstretched National Health Service. Our main challenge is likely to be in utilising research findings in the designing of tailored-interventions that can be both patient-centred and cost-effective. It is difficult to predict costs without knowing what findings will be generated from such innovative and exploratory research. However, expense should not be a barrier to the shift in our approach to wound management considering that globally this growing problem is forecasted to cost over $18.5 billion per year by 2021.20 Clearly it is time to throw down the gauntlet and change the way we treat individuals with complex wounds. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest." @default.
• W2777997780 created "2018-01-05" @default.
• W2777997780 creator A5013947619 @default.
• W2777997780 creator A5014386846 @default.
• W2777997780 creator A5065948051 @default.
• W2777997780 date "2017-12-20" @default.
• W2777997780 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2777997780 title "Changing the way we think about wounds: A challenge for 21st century medical practice" @default.
• W2777997780 cites W1766701540 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W1872758824 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2005022514 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2014555603 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2044164302 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2050252960 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2080599915 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2151186028 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2169160251 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2232019977 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2417002403 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W2622124690 @default.
• W2777997780 cites W4295715489 @default.
• W2777997780 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12866" @default.
• W2777997780 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7949535" @default.
• W2777997780 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29266777" @default.
• W2777997780 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2777997780 type Work @default.
• W2777997780 sameAs 2777997780 @default.
• W2777997780 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2777997780 countsByYear W27779977802019 @default.
• W2777997780 countsByYear W27779977802020 @default.
• W2777997780 countsByYear W27779977802022 @default.
• W2777997780 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2777997780 hasAuthorship W2777997780A5013947619 @default.
• W2777997780 hasAuthorship W2777997780A5014386846 @default.
• W2777997780 hasAuthorship W2777997780A5065948051 @default.
• W2777997780 hasBestOaLocation W27779977802 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C20555606 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C2777858829 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C2780269544 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C2909500400 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C555293320 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C134018914 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C141071460 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C17744445 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C177713679 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C199539241 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C20555606 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C2777858829 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C2780269544 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C2909500400 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C555293320 @default.
• W2777997780 hasConceptScore W2777997780C71924100 @default.
• W2777997780 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2777997780 hasLocation W27779977801 @default.
• W2777997780 hasLocation W27779977802 @default.
• W2777997780 hasLocation W27779977803 @default.
• W2777997780 hasLocation W27779977804 @default.
• W2777997780 hasOpenAccess W2777997780 @default.
• W2777997780 hasPrimaryLocation W27779977801 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W1563850031 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W2115862042 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W2157775732 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W2340920661 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W2384279291 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W2389704575 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W2415759662 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W3028628401 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W3036934084 @default.
• W2777997780 hasRelatedWork W4220834409 @default.
• W2777997780 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W2777997780 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2777997780 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2777997780 magId "2777997780" @default.
• W2777997780 workType "article" @default.