Patient education for preventing recurrence of venous leg ulcers: a systematic review

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the impact of patient education interventions on preventing the recurrence of venous leg ulcers (VLU). Method: A systematic review was undertaken using the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid; Ovid (In-process and Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. Trial registries and reference lists of relevant publications for published and ongoing trials were also searched. There were no language or publication date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of patient educational interventions for preventing VLU recurrence were included. Review authors working independently assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their risk of bias, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria. Results: A total of four studies met the inclusion criteria (274 participants). Each trial explored different interventions as follows: the Lively legs programme; education delivered via a video compared with education delivered via a pamphlet; the Leg Ulcer Prevention Programme and the Lindsay Leg Club. Only one study reported the primary outcome of incidence of VLU recurrence. All studies reported at least one of the secondary outcomes: patient behaviours, patient knowledge and patient quality of life (QoL). It is uncertain whether patient education programmes make any difference to VLU recurrence at 18 months (risk ratio [RR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.59 to 1.14) or to patient behaviours (walked at least 10 minutes/five days a week RR: 1.48; 95%CI: 0.99 to 2.21; walked at least 30 minutes/five days a week: RR 1.14; 95%CI: 0.66 to 1.98; performed leg exercises: RR: 1.47; 95%CI: 1.04 to 2.09); to knowledge scores (MD (mean difference) 5.12, 95% CI –1.54 to 11.78); or to QoL (MD: 0.85, 95% CI –0.13 to 1.83), as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low. It is also uncertain whether different types of education delivery make any difference to knowledge scores (MD: 12.40; 95%CI: –5.68 to 30.48). Overall, GRADE assessments of the evidence resulted predominantly in judgments of very low certainty. The studies were at high risk of bias and outcome measures were imprecise due to wide CIs and small sample sizes. Conclusion: It is uncertain whether education makes any difference to the prevention of VLU recurrence. Therefore, further well-designed trials, addressing important clinical, QoL and economic outcomes are justified, based on the incidence of the problem and the high costs associated with VLU management.