Objectives The aim of this study was to implement training to increase the perineal care knowledge of relatives caring for incontinent palliative care patients and to examine the effectiveness of this training.
Methods This study was designed as a pretest–post-test randomised controlled trial. The study included 84 relatives of patients with incontinence (experimental group, n=42; control group, n=42). The experimental group was given one-on-one face-to-face training on perineal care for patients with incontinence, while the control group was given training through a brochure. Data were collected using a personal information form and the Perineal Care Knowledge Test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results The difference between the pretest and post-test scores of the experimental group was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05), while the difference between the pretest and post-test scores of the control group was not significant (p>0.05). The post-test scores of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group (p<0.05).
Conclusions It was found that one-on-one face-to-face perineal care training was a more effective method for increasing the perineal care knowledge of patients’ relatives than brochures.
- education and training
- skin care
- supportive care
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors LNU and HHT participated in the design of the study, writing original draft and data analysis. LNU and HHT read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.