Impact of Mattress Use on Sacral Interface Pressure in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
1
College of Nursing & Research Institute of Nursing Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Nursing, Korean Bible University, Seoul 01757, Republic of Korea
3
Cheongju Joo Chan Mi Visiting Nursing Center, Cheongju 28696, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geriatrics 2025, 10(4), 107; https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10040107
Submission received: 16 June 2025
/
Revised: 23 July 2025
/
Accepted: 4 August 2025
/
Published: 6 August 2025
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Pressure injuries are a significant concern among older adults, particularly in community-based long-term care settings where prolonged immobility is prevalent. This study aimed to identify factors influencing sacral interface pressure in community-dwelling older adults, with an emphasis on support surface usage and clinical risk indicators. Methods: A total of 210 participants aged 65 years and older, all receiving long-term care services in South Korea, were enrolled in this study. Sacral interface pressure was measured in the supine position using a portable pressure mapping device (Palm Q7). General characteristics, Braden Scale scores, Huhn Scale scores, and mattress usage were assessed. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Results: Mattress non-use was identified as the strongest predictor of elevated sacral interface pressure (OR = 6.71, p < 0.001), followed by Braden Scale scores indicating moderate risk (OR = 4.8, p = 0.006). Huhn Scale scores were not significantly associated with interface pressure. These results suggest that support surface quality and skin condition have a stronger impact on interface pressure than mobility-related risk factors. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of providing high-quality pressure-relieving mattresses and implementing standardized nursing assessments to reduce the risk of pressure injuries. Integrating smart technologies and expanding access to advanced support surfaces may aid in developing tailored preventive strategies for vulnerable older adults.
1. Introduction
Population aging is progressing rapidly worldwide, posing a critical challenge to healthcare systems and society as a whole [1]. According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) in the World Population Prospects 2024, the global population entered an aging society as of 2022, and is projected to become an aged society by 2039 and a super-aged society by 2070 [1]. In particular, the proportion of the population aged 80 and above is expected to rise from 19.8% in 2023 to 38.9% by 2100, placing increased pressure on healthcare systems, human resources, and medical expenditures [1].
South Korea is experiencing an even faster rate of aging than global trends, with the elderly population aged 65 and older surpassing 20% of the total population in December 2024—making it the second super-aged society in Asia after Japan [2]. As the number of older adults rapidly increases, so does the demand for healthcare and long-term care services. In response, the Korean government implemented the Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) system in 2008 [3]. This system provides community-based services (e.g., home care, home nursing, adult day care) and institutional services (e.g., nursing homes, long-term care hospitals) depending on the individual’s health status and level of care needs [3]. A large proportion of LTCI beneficiaries are at high risk for pressure injuries due to chronic illnesses associated with aging, reduced mobility, and prolonged bed rest [4,5].
Pressure injuries are defined as ischemic damage to localized tissue resulting from sustained mechanical pressure on specific body areas [6]. In bedridden positions such as the supine posture, pressure tends to concentrate on bony prominences like the occiput, scapula, sacrum, and heels, increasing the risk of pressure injuries [7]. The development of pressure injuries is multifactorial, involving health status, reduced mobility, nutritional deficits, and particularly, interface pressure between the body and the support surface—a key physiological mechanism [8,9]. They are among the most common skin issues in older adults, with prevalence reported in up to 70% of those aged 70 and above [10]. The prevalence of pressure injuries in long-term care facilities ranges from 16.7% to 43.3%, higher than that of hospitalized patients, which ranges from 4.3% to 28.8% [11].
Interface pressure refers to the mechanical pressure exerted between the skin and the support surface. When sustained or exceeding a critical threshold, it can impair local blood flow and lead to tissue necrosis [12].
Since interface pressure is affected by multiple factors such as posture, mobility, skin condition, and body weight, its quantitative assessment is essential for developing individualized nursing interventions for pressure injury prevention [13]. Previous studies on interface pressure have mostly focused on pressure measurements in specific body positions or used single mattress conditions in controlled environments. As such, research comprehensively examining the factors affecting interface pressure in the commonly maintained sacral posture within real-world clinical or community settings remains limited [14].
In South Korea, the LTCI system currently focuses primarily on human resources—such as home care workers and visiting care services—while support for pressure-relieving equipment remains limited [15]. Although pressure-relieving mattresses are included in LTCI benefit items, they are available only for rental, not purchase. Most rental mattresses are low-cost models that often generate noise, have poor durability, and cause user discomfort, making them unsuitable for long-term use [15,16]. This creates a substantial financial burden for older adults and their families, while the lack of quality standards and post-use management further reveals systemic limitations [17]. By contrast, countries like Japan and Germany have developed integrated systems such as TAIS (Technical Aids Information System), MDK (Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung) reviews, and the REHADAT (Rehabilitations-Datenbank) database to assess equipment appropriateness and provide nationwide information [18,19]. These examples emphasize the importance of establishing a comprehensive support system that includes not only nursing care but also preventive equipment provision.
To address this research gap, the present study was conducted among older adults living in the community, reflecting real-life environments and the accessibility of local resources. In particular, the study incorporated various types of mattresses actually used in community-based care settings, and comprehensively analyzed multiple clinical variables, including Braden Scale scores, fall risk, and mattress use.
Therefore, this study aims to identify the factors influencing sacral interface pressure in community-dwelling older adults and to provide foundational evidence for the development of tailored community-based nursing interventions and health policy improvements to reduce pressure injury risks.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
This study employed a correlational research design to measure sacral interface pressure in older adults aged 65 and above receiving long-term care services in South Korea and to identify factors influencing pressure levels for the purpose of developing effective pressure injury prevention strategies.
This study employed a correlational research design to measure sacral interface pressure in older adults aged 65 and above receiving long-term care services in South Korea and to identify factors influencing pressure levels. The goal was to develop effective strategies for pressure injury prevention in real-world community settings.
2.2. Participants
Participants were community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years or older who were receiving long-term care services and were capable of maintaining a supine position for at least 20 min. Inclusion criteria required individuals to be free of acute musculoskeletal or neurological conditions that would interfere with posture maintenance or pressure measurement. Individuals with communication difficulties (e.g., advanced dementia or aphasia), unstable vital signs, skin damage in the sacral area, or inability to lie still were excluded. All participants voluntarily consented to the study. The required sample size was calculated using G*Power 3.1.9.7. With an effect size of 0.15, significance level (α) of 0.05, power of 0.85, and 12 independent variables, the minimum sample size was estimated to be 175. Considering a dropout rate of 20%, a total of 210 participants were recruited.
2.3. Data Collection and Measurement Instruments
Data was collected using a structured case report form, which included personal, health-related, and environmental factors. Personal characteristics included sex, age, height, weight, mobility, bowel/bladder function, and nutritional status. Bowel and bladder function were assessed by direct observation and a caregiver report using a structured checklist. Hemoglobin was measured via capillary blood sampling using a portable point-of-care testing device (CERA-CHEK™ Hb Plus), and body weight was measured using a calibrated digital scale. These physiological variables were included to evaluate changes in hemodynamic status before and after pressure redistribution. Cognitive status, medication use, and primary caregiver status were also recorded.
Health-related conditions included chronic diseases, presence of pain or catheters, fall risk, and pressure injury risk. The Braden Scale was used for pressure injury risk (score < 18 = high risk), and the Huhn Scale for fall risk (score ≥ 10 = high risk).
Environmental factors such as room temperature and humidity were also documented at the time of measurement, although they were not included in the main statistical analysis.
2.4. Sacral Interface Pressure Measurement
Interface pressure at the sacral area was measured using a portable Palm Q7 device (Cape Co., Ltd., Yokosuka, Japan) while participants were in a standardized supine position. The device includes five pressure sensors in a 10 cm square layout and records values from 0 to 200 mmHg.
The supine position was defined as lying flat while facing upward, with legs extended and separated by approximately 10 cm, and both hands resting on the abdomen. The pressure sensor pad was positioned at the intersection of the bilateral iliac crests, spinal column, and sacrum.
Measurements were conducted twice for each participant: once on a general mattress and once on a pressure-redistributing mattress. Each session lasted 20 min. Prior to and after each session, participants’ health status, hemoglobin, and body weight were assessed as previously described in Section 2.3.
To maintain ethical standards and participant comfort, the pressure sensor was placed over light clothing rather than directly on the skin. This method aligns with the manufacturer-provided instructional video and is consistent with the procedures employed in previous studies using the same device [9].
To ensure consistent measurement, the research team received standardized training using a manufacturer-provided instructional video and a Korean-language checklist. To assess inter-rater reliability, two trained raters independently measured interface pressure at the sacrum in 30 older adults using the Palm Q7, with a 5 min interval between measurements. The single-measure Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was 0.938 (95% CI: 0.779–0.976), indicating excellent reliability.
2.5. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and sacral interface pressure levels. Independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA were conducted to compare pressure differences across subgroups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with high sacral interface pressure. Predictor variables included demographic characteristics (age, sex, BMI) and clinical factors such as Braden Scale score, Huhn fall risk score, cognitive status, bowel and bladder function, and mattress use.
The Braden Scale was selected as the primary risk assessment tool for pressure injuries in this study. This decision was based on the community-based setting of the research, as recent studies have shown that the Braden Scale demonstrates better predictive validity and clinical applicability than the Waterlow Scale in similar environments [20,21]. The overall research process, including study population, predictor variables, pressure measurement procedures, and analytical framework, is illustrated in Figure 1.
2.6. Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chungbuk National University (IRB No. CBNU-2025-A-0001). All participants were informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, and pressure measurement protocol at least one day in advance. Participation was voluntary, and subjects were allowed to withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants were also instructed to report any discomfort during measurement, which would prompt immediate discontinuation. For ethical reasons, the pressure sensor was attached over clothing rather than directly to the skin. To ensure privacy, each participant was assigned a unique code, and all data were anonymized and securely stored in a password-protected computer accessible only to the research team.
Generative AI was not used in study design, data analysis, or interpretation. Only language editing assistance was applied. The dataset generated during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
3. Results
3.1. General Characteristics of the Participants
A total of 210 participants were included in the study, comprising 137 males (65.2%) and 73 females (34.8%), with a mean age of 82.30 ± 7.56 years. The majority of participants (59.7%) were aged 81 years or older. Regarding mobility, 109 participants (51.9%) were able to ambulate independently, 51 (24.3%) were partially bedridden, and 50 (23.8%) were completely bedridden. The average body mass index (BMI) was 21.59 ± 3.48 kg/m2, with 150 participants (72.5%) falling within the normal BMI range (18.5–25.5 kg/m2).
In terms of incontinence care, 54 participants (25.7%) used diapers for bowel incontinence and 50 (23.8%) for urinary incontinence, while 38 participants (18.1%) had indwelling urinary catheters. Nutritional status was reported as good in 128 participants (62.1%) and very poor in 7 (3.4%). The mean hemoglobin level was 12.32 ± 1.61 g/dL, and 198 participants (95.2%) had levels below 10 g/dL. The mean oxygen saturation (SpO2) was 96.43 ± 2.48%, with 90 participants (60.4%) recording levels of 97% or higher.
Pressure injury staging revealed that 159 participants (75.7%) were classified as stage 0, 23 (11.0%) as stage 1, 18 (8.6%) as stage 2, 7 (3.3%) as stage 3, and 2 (1.0%) as stage 4. One participant (0.5%) was classified as unstageable.
Fall risk assessment showed that 135 participants (64.3%) were categorized as high-risk (score ≥ 11), with a mean fall risk score of 11.98 ± 8.66. According to the Braden Scale, 20 participants (9.5%) were classified as high-risk (≤9 points) and 92 (43.8%) as moderate-risk (10–17 points), with a mean score of 16.55 ± 4.81.
Regarding mattress use, 137 participants (65.2%) used either an air or foam pressure-relieving mattress, while 73 participants (34.8%) did not (Table 1).
3.2. Differences in Sacral Interface Pressure According to General Characteristics
Based on prior research [22], sacral interface pressure was classified using a threshold of 32 mmHg. Statistically significant differences were observed in sacral interface pressure according to fall risk (χ2 = 9.29, p = 0.010), Braden Scale scores (χ2 = 11.18, p = 0.004), and mattress use (χ2 = 8.17, p = 0.004).
Among participants at high risk of falls (≥11 points), 80.0% (n = 108) exhibited sacral interface pressure ≥32 mmHg, compared to 60.7% (n = 37) in the low-risk group (≤4 points), suggesting that individuals at greater fall risk are more likely to experience elevated interface pressure.
Similarly, among participants with sacral interface pressure ≥32 mmHg, 85.9% (n = 79) were classified as moderate risk (10–17 points) based on the Braden Scale, while 67.3% (n = 66) were classified as having normal risk (≥18 points). This indicates that individuals with reduced mobility, sensory perception, moisture control, or nutritional status—as assessed by the Braden Scale—may be more prone to increased sacral pressure.
Regarding mattress use, 86.6% (n = 58) of participants who did not use a pressure-relieving mattress showed sacral interface pressure ≥32 mmHg, highlighting the potential effectiveness of pressure redistribution mattresses.
No statistically significant differences in sacral interface pressure were found with respect to sex, age, bedridden status, BMI, nutritional status, hemoglobin level, oxygen saturation, or urinary and defecation care variables (Table 2).
3.3. Factors Influencing Sacral Interface Pressure
A multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted using the variables that were statistically significant in the univariate analysis (p < 0.05), including fall risk score, Braden Scale score, and mattress use, to identify the risk factors associated with elevated sacral interface pressure. The regression model was statistically significant (χ2 = 35.70, p < 0.001), with a Cox and Snell R-squared value of 0.16 and a Nagelkerke R-squared value of 0.23, indicating moderate explanatory power (Table 3). The analysis revealed that non-use of a pressure-relieving mattress was the most significant predictor of elevated interface pressure. Participants who did not use a mattress were 6.71 times more likely to exhibit sacral interface pressure levels ≥ 32 mmHg compared to those who used a mattress (OR = 6.71, p < 0.001).
Additionally, Braden Scale scores were found to have a statistically significant association with interface pressure. Participants in the moderate-risk group (10–17 points) had significantly higher odds of elevated sacral interface pressure compared to those in the normal group (≥18 points), indicating that impaired skin integrity, reduced mobility, and related risk factors may contribute to increased interface pressure in older adults.
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary of Main Findings
This study analyzed the factors influencing sacral interface pressure in community-dwelling older adults. The results indicated that the non-use of pressure-relieving mattresses was the most significant predictor of elevated interface pressure (OR = 6.71, p < 0.001), followed by Braden Scale scores, which also showed a statistically significant association (Figure 2). In contrast, Huhn Scale scores did not show a meaningful relationship, suggesting that skin condition and support surface characteristics may have a stronger impact on sacral interface pressure than mobility-related risk factors.
4.2. Interpretation in the Context of Prior Research
These findings are consistent with previous studies. For example, Kawabata et al. [9] reported a relationship between internal air pressure in mattresses and interface pressure distribution, while Matsuo et al. [13] proposed a pressure redistribution model emphasizing the clinical relevance of Braden Scale components. Similarly, Ho et al. [23] demonstrated the effectiveness of real-time pressure mapping systems in reducing interface pressure among high-risk individuals.
4.3. Methodological Considerations
Ethical considerations limited the direct measurement of interface pressure on the skin; instead, sensors were placed over participants’ clothing. This indirect approach may have introduced some inaccuracy in absolute pressure values; thus, the findings should be interpreted in terms of relative differences. Future research should consider additional physiological and environmental variables—such as skin friction, moisture, and temperature—to better understand the complex dynamics of interface pressure.
4.4. Practical and Technological Implications
This study was conducted not in a hospital setting but in real-world community environments. Therefore, various uncontrolled external factors may have influenced sacral interface pressure. Prior research has shown that when family members serve as primary caregivers, insufficient knowledge, attitudes, and practices can hinder effective pressure injury prevention [24]. This may help explain the elevated pressure observed even among participants classified as “moderate risk” by the Braden Scale. These findings highlight the importance of tailored nursing interventions that reflect actual living conditions.
Specifically, smart mattresses and pressure-redistributing surfaces have been shown to effectively reduce sacral interface pressure in high-risk older adults [25,26]. However, such high-cost equipment is often difficult to implement widely in community settings due to financial and structural limitations. In this context, prioritizing mattress provision for high-risk individuals may improve cost-effectiveness and system efficiency [27]. Thus, policy approaches should go beyond equipment distribution to include caregiver education, low-cost environmental modifications, and the development of integrated community-based support systems. In addition, effective risk assessment for pressure injury in older adults should be led by a multidisciplinary team (MDT), incorporating not only the Braden Scale but also comprehensive evaluations of nutritional status and physical function [28]. This team-based, holistic assessment approach can better identify those at highest risk and facilitate the delivery of targeted, practical interventions tailored to real-world community environments.
Future strategies should focus on developing affordable, user-friendly technologies that can be selectively applied to high-risk groups and integrated into community health systems. Ultimately, pressure injury prevention should evolve into a sustainable, user-centered nursing model that integrates clinical evaluation, technology, and community-based care.
4.5. Limitations
This study has several limitations.
First, for ethical considerations and to protect personal privacy, interface pressure was measured by placing the sensor over clothing rather than directly on the skin. Although the study focused on relative differences between conditions rather than absolute values, this indirect measurement method may have affected the accuracy of pressure readings.
Second, due to the cross-sectional design of this study, it is difficult to establish clear causal relationships between the identified influencing factors and sacral interface pressure.
Third, participants were recruited from a single community health center in an urban area, which limits the generalizability of the findings to older adults living in rural settings or long-term care facilities.
Fourth, physiological factors that may affect interface pressure—such as skin moisture, temperature, and friction—were not measured or included in the analysis.
Future research should consider direct pressure measurements on the skin, employ longitudinal study designs, and include a broader range of physiological and environmental variables to deepen understanding of pressure dynamics among community-dwelling older adults.
5. Conclusions
This study confirmed that the non-use of pressure-relieving mattresses and lower Braden Scale scores were significantly associated with increased sacral interface pressure among community-dwelling older adults. These results suggest that reliance solely on clinical assessment is insufficient, and more targeted preventive strategies are needed. Improving access to affordable pressure-relieving equipment and strengthening caregiver education in the home are essential. In addition, the development of smart pressure monitoring technologies and community-based nursing interventions should be prioritized to reduce risks among the elderly. Furthermore, the assessment of older adults at risk of pressure injury should be led by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) and include comprehensive evaluations of nutritional status and physical function, in addition to the Braden Scale. Future research should further refine and validate these approaches in various real-world settings.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.P. and J.E.H.; methodology, S.P., H.Y.L. and J.E.H.; formal analysis, I.S.J. and S.P.; investigation, J.H.K., J.E.H. and H.Y.L.; resources, S.P.; data curation, S.P., I.S.J. and J.E.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P. and H.Y.L.; writing—review and editing, S.P., I.S.J., J.H.K., J.E.H. and H.Y.L.; visualization, H.Y.L. and S.P.; supervision, S.P.; project administration, S.P.; funding acquisition, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by Chungbuk National University Korea National University Development Project (2024).
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chungbuk National University Hospital (IRB No. CBNU-2025-A-0001).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Statistics Korea. Data on the Proportion of the Elderly [Internet]; Statistics Korea: Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2021.
- National Health Insurance Service. Long Term Care Insurance Statistical Yearbook; National Health Insurance Service: Wonju, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Gould, L.; Stuntz, M.; Giovannelli, M.; Ahmad, A.; Aslam, R.; Mullen-Fortino, M.; Whitney, J.D.; Calhoun, J.; Kirsner, R.S.; Gordillo, G.M. Wound Healing Society 2015 update on guidelines for pressure ulcers. Wound Repair Regen. 2016, 24, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eom, J.Y.; Jung, D.Y. Systematic review for the pressure ulcer preventive interventions. J. Korean Gerontol. Nurs. 2013, 33, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
- National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. NPUAP Announces a Change in Terminology From Pressure Ulcer to Pressure Injury and Updates the Stages of Pressure Injury; National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Moon, I.; Kang, S.J.; Kim, G.S.; Mun, M.S. Control of air-cell mattress for preventing pressure ulcer based on approximate anthropometric model. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 June–1 July 2005; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 164–167. [Google Scholar]
- Baumgarten, M.; Margolis, D.J.; Localio, A.R.; Kagan, S.H.; Lowe, R.A.; Kinosian, B.; Abbuhl, S.B.; Kavesh, W.; Holmes, J.H.; Ruffin, A.; et al. Extrinsic risk factors for pressure ulcers early in the hospital stay: A nested case-control study. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2008, 63, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawabata, T.; Sugama, J. Relationship between mattress internal air pressure and interface pressure distribution in the lateral position. Int. Wound J. 2022, 19, 2115–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Primiano, M.; Friend, M.; McClure, C.; Nardi, S.; Fix, L.; Schafer, M.; Savochka, K.; McNett, M. Pressure ulcer prevalence and risk factors during prolonged surgical procedures. AORN J. 2011, 94, 555–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capon, A.; Pavoni, N.; Mastromattei, A.; Di Lallo, D. Pressure ulcer risk in long-term units: Prevalence and associated factors. J. Adv. Nurs. 2007, 58, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnie, A. Interface pressure measurements in leg ulcer management. Br. J. Nurs. 2000, 9 (Suppl. 1), S8–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsuo, J.; Sugama, J.; Sanada, H.; Okuwa, M.; Nakatani, T.; Konya, C.; Sakamoto, J. Development and validity of a new model for assessing pressure redistribution properties of support surfaces. J. Tissue Viability 2011, 20, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.; Kang, S. Intelligent Pressure Ulcer Prevention Mattress for Interventional Nursing in an Aged Society. J. Inst. Electron. Eng. Korea 2017, 44, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Health and Welfare. Plan for Improving the Welfare Equipment System; Ministry of Health and Welfare: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2024.
- Kim, Y. A Study on the Long-Term Care Insurance Welfare Equipment Rental System: Focus Group Interview with Service Users and Providers. Health Soc. Welf. Rev. 2017, 37, 230–259. [Google Scholar]
- McInnes, E.; Jammali-Blasi, A.; Bell-Syer, S.; Dumville, J.C.; Middleton, V.; Cullum, N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD001735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, Y. Empirical Analysis of Use Support for Long-Term Care Management Establishment. J. Korea Acad.-Ind. Coop. Soc. 2022, 23, 348–357. [Google Scholar]
- Walia, G.S.; Wong, A.L.; Lo, A.Y.; Zhou, A.Y.; Ko, J.N.; Huang, R.; Lee, G.K.; Hara, H.; Wong, M.S. Effectiveness of pressure-redistributing support surfaces in preventing pressure ulcers: A systematic review. J. Tissue Viability 2020, 29, 220–228. [Google Scholar]
- Tao, L.; Tang, C.; Chen, J.; Jiang, Y. Comparison of the predictive validity of the Braden and Waterlow scales in preventing pressure injuries among surgical patients: A meta-analysis. J. Clin. Nurs. 2023, 32, 892–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, Y.; Wang, F.; Cai, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Li, X.; Wang, R.; Tung, T.-H. The accuracy of the risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in adult surgical patients: A network meta-analysis. BMC Surg. 2025, 25, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, M.; Park, K.H.; Shin, J.; Lee, J.H. Predicting the cut-off point for interface pressure in pressure injury according to the standard hospital mattress and polyurethane foam mattress as support surfaces. Int. Wound J. 2022, 19, 1509–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, C.; Ocampo, W.; Southern, D.A.; Sola, D.; Baylis, B.; Conly, J.M.; Hogan, D.B.; Kaufman, J.; Stelfox, H.T.; Ghali, W.A. Effect of a continuous bedside pressure mapping system for reducing interface pressures: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e2316480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, S.P.; Everink, I.H.; Lohrmann, C.; Amir, Y.; Sari, E.A.; Halfens, R.J.; Schols, J.M. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Family Caregivers on Pressure Injury Prevention for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in an Indonesia City. BMC Nurs. 2025, 24, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zou, X.; Zhang, B.; Han, Y.; Wang, S.; Liu, T.; Zhang, X. A flexible turning and sensing system for pressure ulcers prevention. Electronics 2021, 10, 2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.H.; Kwon, Y.-E.; Lee, H.; Lee, Y.; Seo, J.; Kwon, O.; Kang, S.-W.; Lee, D. Active body pressure relief system with time-of-flight optical pressure sensors for pressure ulcer prevention. Sensors 2019, 19, 3862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackburn, J.; Britton, S.; Pearson, A. Pressure Redistribution Support Surfaces in the Community Setting: An American Perspective. World Union. Wound Heal. Soc. J. 2020, 20, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel; European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. 2019. Available online: https://internationalguideline.com/ (accessed on 1 May 2025).
Figure 1.
Overview of study design, pressure measurement procedure, and analytical framework.
Figure 2.
Forest plot of logistic regression analysis for factors influencing interface pressure (≥32 mmHg) in the supine position.
Figure 2.
Forest plot of logistic regression analysis for factors influencing interface pressure (≥32 mmHg) in the supine position.
Table 1.
General characteristics of participants.
| Variables | Categories | n | % | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 137 | 65.2 | ||
| Female | 73 | 34.8 | |||
| Age | ≤70 | 14 | 6.8 | 82.30 ± 7.56 | |
| 71–80 | 69 | 33.5 | |||
| ≥81 | 123 | 59.7 | |||
| Bedridden status | Fully | 50 | 23.8 | ||
| Partially | 51 | 24.3 | |||
| Not bedridden | 109 | 51.9 | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | <18.5 | 34 | 16.4 | 21.59 ± 3.48 | |
| 18.5–25.5 | 150 | 72.5 | |||
| ≥25.5 | 23 | 11.1 | |||
| Defecation | No diaper | 156 | 74.3 | ||
| With diaper | 54 | 25.7 | |||
| Urination | No diaper | 160 | 76.2 | ||
| With diaper | 50 | 23.8 | |||
| Urinary catheter | None | 172 | 81.9 | ||
| Present | 38 | 18.1 | |||
| Nutritional status | Good | 128 | 62.1 | ||
| Poor | 71 | 34.5 | |||
| Very poor | 7 | 3.4 | |||
| Hemoglobin (Hb,g/dL) | ≥10 | 10 | 4.8 | 12.32 ± 1.61 | |
| <10 | 198 | 95.2 | |||
| SpO2 (%) | ≥97 | 90 | 60.4 | 96.43 ± 2.48 | |
| <97 | 59 | 39.6 | |||
| Pressure injury | No | 159 | 75.7 | ||
| Yes | Stage 1 | 23 | 11 | ||
| Stage 2 | 18 | 8.6 | |||
| Stage 3 | 7 | 3.3 | |||
| Stage 4 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Unstageable | 1 | 0.5 | |||
| Huhn Scale score for fall risk | Low (≤4) | 61 | 29 | 11.98 ± 8.66 | |
| Moderate (5–10) | 14 | 6.7 | |||
| High (≥11) | 135 | 64.3 | |||
| Braden Scale score | Normal (≥18) | 98 | 46.7 | 16.55 ± 4.81 | |
| Moderate risk (10–17) | 92 | 43.8 | |||
| High risk (≤9) | 20 | 9.5 | |||
| Mattress use | No | 73 | 34.8 | ||
| Yes | 137 | 65.2 | |||
Table 2.
Differences in sacral interface pressure according to general characteristics (n = 210).
| Variables | Categories | Interface Pressure n (%) | χ2/t/Z | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <32 mmHg | ≥32 mmHg | |||||
| Gender | Male | 37 (27.0) | 100 (73.0) | 0.65 | 0.419 | |
| Female | 16 (21.9) | 57 (78.1) | ||||
| Age | ≤70 | 2 (14.3) | 12 (85.7) | 0.96 | 0.620 | |
| 71–80 | 18 (26.1) | 51 (73.9) | ||||
| ≥81 | 32 (26.0) | 91 (74.0) | ||||
| Bedridden status | Fully | 15 (30.0) | 35 (70.0) | 4.78 | 0.092 | |
| Partially | 7 (13.7) | 44 (86.3) | ||||
| Not bedridden | 31 (28.4) | 78 (71.6) | ||||
| BMI | <18.5 | 10 (29.4) | 24 (70.6) | 0.49 | 0.783 | |
| 18.5–25.5 | 37 (24.7) | 113 (75.3) | ||||
| ≥25.5 | 5 (21.7) | 18 (78.3) | ||||
| Defecation | No diaper | 41 (26.3) | 115 (73.7) | 0.35 | 0.554 | |
| With diaper | 12 (22.2) | 42 (77.8) | ||||
| Urination | No diaper | 42 (26.3) | 118 (73.8) | 0.37 | 0.546 | |
| With diaper | 11 (22.0) | 39 (78.0) | ||||
| Indwelling catheter | No | 44 (25.6) | 128 (74.4) | 0.06 | 0.807 | |
| Yes | 9 (23.7) | 29 (76.3) | ||||
| Nutritional status | Good | 39 (30.5) | 89 (69.5) | 4.92 | 0.086 | |
| Poor | 12 (16.9) | 59 (83.1) | ||||
| Severely poor | 1 (14.3) | 6 (85.7) | ||||
| Hemoglobin (Hb,g/dL) | ≥10 g/dL | 5 (50.0) | 5 (50.0) | 3.50 | 0.061 | |
| <10 g/dL | 47 (23.7) | 151 (76.3) | ||||
| SpO2 (%) | ≥97% | 21 (23.3) | 69 (76.7) | 1.45 | 0.229 | |
| <97% | 9 (15.3) | 50 (84.7) | ||||
| Pressure injury | No | 40 (25.2) | 119 (74.8) | 4.27 | 0.511 | |
| Yes | Stage 1 | 5 (21.7) | 18 (78.3) | |||
| Stage 2 | 5 (27.8) | 13 (72.2) | ||||
| Stage 3 | 1 (14.3) | 6 (85.7) | ||||
| Stage 4 | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | ||||
| Unstageable | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Fall risk score | Low (≤4) | 24 (39.3) | 37 (60.7) | 9.29 | 0.010 | |
| Moderate (5–10) | 2 (14.3) | 12 (85.7) | ||||
| High (≥11) | 27 (20.0) | 108 (80.0) | ||||
| Huhn Scale score for fall risk | Normal (≥18) | 32 (32.7) | 66 (67.3) | 11.18 | 0.004 | |
| Moderate risk (10–17) | 13 (14.1) | 79 (85.9) | ||||
| High risk (≤9) | 8 (40.0) | 12 (60.0) | ||||
| Mattress use | No | 9 (13.4) | 58 (86.6) | 8.17 | 0.004 | |
| Yes | 44 (32.1) | 93 (67.9) | ||||
Table 3.
Logistic regression analysis of multiple factors influencing interface pressure.
| Variable | Categories | B | SE | p | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Fall risk score | Low risk (≤4 points, reference) | ||||||
| Moderate risk (5–10 points) | 1.15 | 0.87 | 0.184 | 3.16 | 0.58 | 17.27 | |
| High risk (≥11 points) | 0.47 | 0.54 | 0.381 | 1.6 | 0.56 | 4.57 | |
| Braden Scale score | Normal (≥18, reference) | ||||||
| Moderate risk (10–17) | 1.57 | 0.57 | 0.006 | 4.8 | 1.57 | 14.7 | |
| High risk (≤9) | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.692 | 1.31 | 0.35 | 4.9 | |
| Mattress use | Yes (reference) | ||||||
| No | 1.9 | 0.46 | <0.001 | 6.71 | 2.7 | 16.67 | |
| Nagelkerke R2 = 0.23; Cox and Snell R2 = 0.16; χ2/p-value = 35.70/<0.001 | |||||||
SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Lee, H.Y.; Jang, I.S.; Hong, J.E.; Kim, J.H.; Park, S. Impact of Mattress Use on Sacral Interface Pressure in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Geriatrics 2025, 10, 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10040107
AMA Style
Lee HY, Jang IS, Hong JE, Kim JH, Park S. Impact of Mattress Use on Sacral Interface Pressure in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Geriatrics. 2025; 10(4):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10040107
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Hye Young, In Sun Jang, Jung Eun Hong, Je Hyun Kim, and Seungmi Park. 2025. "Impact of Mattress Use on Sacral Interface Pressure in Community-Dwelling Older Adults" Geriatrics 10, no. 4: 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10040107
APA StyleLee, H. Y., Jang, I. S., Hong, J. E., Kim, J. H., & Park, S. (2025). Impact of Mattress Use on Sacral Interface Pressure in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Geriatrics, 10(4), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10040107
