Compression bandaging: Identification of factors contributing to non-concordance

Sharon L. Boxall, Keryln Carville, Gavin D. Leslie, Shirley Jansen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Web of Science)


Aims To elucidate reasons for non-concordance with compression bandaging, subject the identified reasons to thematic analysis and use the resultant themes as the basis for the development of a screening tool to identify those patients at risk of non-concordance with compression bandaging.

Method A literature search was undertaken using the terms 'concordance', 'compression bandaging' and 'venous leg ulcer'. Articles were included if they discussed reasons for non-concordance with compression bandaging. Forty-one articles were identified which met inclusion criteria. The full texts were read and the reasons for non-concordance tabulated. These were then subjected to thematic analysis.

Results Six themes emerged. These were termed knowledge deficit; resource deficit; psychosocial issues; pain/discomfort; physical limitations; and wound management. These themes were used to develop a screening tool to identify patients who exhibit barriers to concordance with compression bandaging.

Discussion Compression bandaging is the recommended treatment for venous leg ulceration1-3. However, the degree of concordance with compression bandaging therapy remains at sub-optimal levels(4,5). Consequently patients experience protracted ulceration. The development of a risk screening tool for non-concordance will permit targeted intervention to address barriers to concordance before the patient has a poor experience of compression therapy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6-20
Number of pages15
JournalWound Practice and Research Journal
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019


Dive into the research topics of 'Compression bandaging: Identification of factors contributing to non-concordance'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this