Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparing nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of dignity in burn care: a cross-sectional study

BMC Nursing volume 24, Article number: 350 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Maintaining patients’ dignity is a moral responsibility of nurses. Patients with burn injury experience changes in their body appearance, self-concept and social roles, which may lead to their fear of losing dignity. The aim of this study was to compare nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of preserving dignity of patients with burn injury.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 110 nurse-patient dyads at Amir-Al-Moemenin Burn Hospital, Shiraz, Iran between August 2023 to February 2024. Data were collected using patient dignity questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS software version 23.0, utilizing descriptive tests, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Results

A significant difference was found between the overall scores of nurses’ (143.21 ± 13.29) and patients’ (136.70 ± 13.8) perceptions of preserving patients’ dignity (p = 0.002). Furthermore, a significant difference was observed between their perceptions of two dignity dimensions including communication and privacy (p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between their perceptions of the two dimensions of autonomy and respect (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

This study highlights disparities in nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of preserving burn patients’ dignity so that patients’ perception of the nurses maintained their dignity was lower than what the nurses themselves believed. Therefore, nurses must pay more attention to maintaining the dignity of patients with burn injuries.

Peer Review reports

Background

Burn injuries put a significant burden on the healthcare systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, nearly 8.4 million burn injuries occurred worldwide resulted in 111,292 deaths [1]. In Iran, burn injuries represent a significant public health concern, affecting a substantial number of individuals annually and associated with a mortality rate of 6.84% [2].

Patients with burn injuries confront the lasting change in appearance along with unbearable pain, reduced function and changes in self-perception and social roles that may profoundly affect their lives. on others, and the fear of losing one’s dignity [3, 4].

The concept of dignity is important but complicated when it comes to providing care [5]. In ethical guidelines, the recognition of human dignity is a fundamental right for everyone, and a moral duty for nurses [6]. According to the International Council of Nurses (ICN) guidelines, nurses legally and ethically are obligated to protect patient dignity while providing the best care possible [7]. The dignity of patients is influenced by multiple factors, such as the attitude and behavior of hospital staff, the surrounding environment, culture, and delivering clinical care approach [8]. Preserving dignity is linked to higher levels of patient satisfaction and self-esteem, shorter hospital stays, and improved coping with illness [9]. Furthermore, support for patients’ dignity by the health care team can make patients feel calm, confident and self-worth, which allows patients to make informed decisions about their care. On the contrary, failure to respect patients’ dignity causes patients’ physical and mental health to decline as well as psychological and spiritual suffering and decrease in their resilience [10, 11, 12, 13].

In the complicated subject of burn injuries, where patients face severe psychological and emotional difficulties in addition to physical trauma, maintaining dignity is one of the highest priorities [14, 15, 16]. Therefore, it is essential to examine patient’s unique needs and expectations regarding maintaining dignity [17]. Some studies in the field of patient dignity are about special patient groups such as patients with cancer, on hemodialysis or elderly [18, 19, 20]. Other studies have investigated the nurses’ understanding of the patient’s dignity. However, they have not investigated the patients’ understanding in this field [21, 22, 23]. Although some literature has been written about the general topic of dignity in healthcare [8, 24, 25], there is a clear research gap concerning the details of maintaining dignity when dealing with burn injuries, as well as the unique perspectives of both patients and healthcare providers in this particular setting. Furthermore, understanding the perspectives of nurses and patients becomes essential to provide patient-centered care [26]. Nurses and patients may have different perspectives on the provision of dignity-based care [27, 28]. In our searches, we did not find studies that have compared nurses’ and burn patients’ understanding of maintaining dignity. Therefore, considering the special conditions that may threaten patients’ dignity after burn and the research gap in this field, the present study was conducted to compare nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of preserving dignity of patients with burn injury.

Methods

Research design, setting and participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted at a burn hospital between August 2023 to February 2024. This hospital is the largest burn care center in the south of Iran, with 75 beds, which provides specialized services in the field of burn care and rehabilitation. 110 nurse-patient dyads (pairs) participated in this study. The sample size was estimated based on the research conducted by Torabizadeh et al. Therefore, considering a significance level of 0.05, a test power of 0.90, d = 0.05, p = 0.5, q = 0.5, using the following formula, a sample size of 110 individuals was determined for each group of nurses and patients [29].

$$\:n=\frac{\left(n{z}^{2}pq\right)\:}{(n{d}^{2}+{z}^{2}pq)}$$

We selected nurses by census method and the patients using stratified random sampling, based on the number of the unit nurses. In this regard, to determine the sample size of nurse-patient pairs from each ward, the number of nurses of the ward who met the inclusion criteria and were willing to participate were determined. For each nurse, one of his/her patients who met the inclusion criteria was selected and paired accordingly. In the next step, each nurse completed the questionnaire regarding his/her designated patient, and each patient completed the questionnaire about his/her assigned nurse. Patients and nurses were aware of the general goal of the study, but in order to make participants, especially patients, comfortable in answering, none of them were informed that the other would also answer the questionnaire questions about them. The inclusion criteria for patients included age of 18 years or older, willingness to participate in the study, and at least three recent hospitalization days. Furthermore, the selected patients were required to have received care from their paired nurses for a period of at least three days. For nurses, inclusion criteria consisted of a minimum of six months of work experience in the burn units, and having at least Bachelor’s degree in nursing. The exclusion criterion for both patients and nurses was failure to complete at least 30% of the questionnaire items. Among all of the eligible nurses, three of the them rejected to participate in the study. However, all the selected patients consented to participate. Finally, 110 nurse-patient pairs participated and data about them were analyzed.

Data collection and research tools

Patients’ questionnaire completed through interviews by the researcher and nurses completed the questionnaire themselves. Researcher asked patients to respond to the questionnaire regarding their nurse who was caring for them during the shift, and nurses completed the questionnaire regarding their patient during the shift.

Data were collected using demographic and clinical information form and patient dignity questionnaire. Demographic and clinical information included questions about patients’ age, gender, marital status, education level, having the same gender as the nurse, burn cause, number of hospitalizations for burn or non-burn reasons, the burned body area including sensitive (breast in females, face and genital area in both gender) and non-sensitive (other parts of body) areas, percentage of burn and length of stay. Nurses’ demographic information included age, gender, marital status, education level, workplace, having the same gender as the patient and work experience in burn and non-burn units.

Torabizadeh et al. designed the Persian version of patient dignity questionnaire and used it to investigate patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of patient dignity in their study. It contains 33 items and four dimensions including “privacy,” “communication,” “respect”, and “autonomy”. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert from 1 (never maintained), 2 (rarely maintained), 3 (sometimes maintained), 4 (usually maintained), and 5 (always maintained). The designers confirmed the validity and reliability of the questionnaire among Iranian nurses and patients. They examined the questionnaire’s qualitative face validity through interviews with 10 nurses and 10 patients to understand the difficulty, relevance, and ambiguity of the items. To ensure quantitative face validity, they asked 10 experts to rate each item on a Likert scale and retained items with impact scores over 1.5. They confirmed the content validity by content validity ratio (CVR) of 0.62 and content validity index (CVI) of 0.79. Additionally, they determined its reliability by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.979 for patients’, and 0.949 for nurses’ questionnaire [29, 30].

Data analysis

The normality of data was assessed through the Shapiro–Wilks test. Subsequently, the collected data underwent analysis employing descriptive tests, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Significance was established for p-values less than 0.05. The data analysis was conducted using SPSS v. 23.0.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, data from 110 nurse-patient dyads from general burn care units, reconstructive surgical wards, emergency and intensive care units (ICUs) were examined. The mean age of the patients was 41.87 ± 14.13 (18–90) years, and their mean length of hospital stay was 7.47 ± 7.81 days. Most of the patients were male, married, and had education levels below diploma. The primary cause of burns in the majority of patients was injuries resulting from thermal burn. In this study, the face, genital area in both gender and breast of female patients considered sensitive areas, while all other body parts except the sensitive areas considered non-sensitive areas. Moreover, findings showed a significant difference between male and female patients’ perceptions of privacy dimension (P = 0.012). Additionally, significant differences were observed between patients with burn in sensitive and non-sensitive areas and dimensions of respect (P = 0.019) and communication (P = 0.031). However, no significant differences were found in the patients’ perceptions of total dignity score and its dimensions based on their gender, marital status, education level, burn cause, number of hospitalizations, and having the same gender as their nurses (Table 1).

Spearman test revealed that patients’ age was significantly correlated with privacy (r = 0.232, P = 0.015) and respect (r = 0.196, P = 0.040) dimensions. Furthermore, percentage of burn was significantly correlated with total dignity score (r= -0.379, P < 0.001), and privacy (r= -0.404, P < 0.001), autonomy (r= -0.307, P < 0.001) and respect (r=-0.356, P < 0.001), dimensions. However, length of stay was not significantly correlated with total dignity score and its dimensions (Table 2).

Table 1 Comparison of patients’ perceptions of preserving dignity according to their qualitative demographic and clinical variables
Full size table
Table 2 Relationship between burn patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of dignity preservation and their quantitative demographic variables
Full size table

The mean age of the nurses was 33.9 ± 7.1 (23–59) years, and their mean work experience in burn units was 6.59 ± 5.03 years. Most of the nurses were female, married, held a bachelor’s degree in nursing, and worked in ICUs. The results revealed significant differences between nurses’ workplace and overall dignity scores, and privacy and autonomy dimensions. Bonferroni post hoc test indicated significant differences between perceptions of nurses working in general burn and ICUs of overall dignity (P = 0.018), privacy (P = 0.036) and autonomy (P = 0.013) dimensions. However, no significant differences were identified in the perceptions of nurses of total dignity score and its dimensions based on their gender, marital status, education levels, and having the same gender as the patient (Table 3). Furthermore, according to Spearman test, there was a significant positive correlation between work experience in the burn units and autonomy (r = 0.200, P = 0.036). However, there was no significant correlation between dignity total score and its dimensions with age and work experience in non-burn units (Table 2).

Table 3 Comparison of nurses’ perceptions of preserving dignity according to their qualitative demographic variables
Full size table

The study’s findings revealed significant differences in nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of the total dignity score (P = 0.002), and privacy and communication dimensions (P ≤ 0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the dimensions of autonomy and respect between the two groups (Table 4).

Table 4 Comparison of nurses’ and patients’ perception of patient dignity
Full size table

Discussion

This study compared nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of dignity preservation in burn injury patients. Results indicated that nurses rated dignity, particularly in privacy and communication, higher than patients did, while perceptions of respect and autonomy showed no significant difference.

These findings align with other research, such as an Iranian study that revealed differing perceptions of dignity between nurses and elderly COVID-19 patients, although both groups agreed on the importance of privacy [31]. Additionally, another study found that nurses and adult patients in medical and surgical wards had varying views on maintaining dignity [29]. Similarly, Peyvakht et al. reported that nurses had a more favorable perspective on respecting patient dignity than elderly patients, with higher scores across all dimensions [18]. Some studies focused solely on overall dignity scores without examining specific dimensions [31, 32].

This study stands apart from earlier studies mainly due to the context of burn care units. Because of the specific nature of burn injury and care processes, their needs regarding preserving dignity may differ. It is worth mentioning that both nurses and patients reported relatively high perceptions of dignity preservation thereby implying that patients received care as they expected. However, the fact that nurses scored higher on overall dignity, communication and privacy implies there might be some misunderstanding of what patients expect. With this misunderstanding, patients are at a risk of dignity impairment, especially regarding privacy and communication. Thus, nurses in burn care units must undergo training and education on factors influencing patient dignity, and dimensions of communication and privacy.

The current study found out a significant positive relationship between the level of privacy and respect that patients felt with their age, where older patients seemed to have a greater appreciation of these factors. Considering that the mean age of the nurses participating in the study was lower than the mean age of the patients, there might be some cultural factors which make the nurses to be more sensitive to the respect and privacy of the elderly patients. The study did not find any relationship between general dignity and age of patients but previous works have shown positive [33, 34], negative [35], or no relationships [36] between patients’ age and dignity as perceived. Furthermore, female patients assigned a higher score to the privacy dimension as compared to male patients. This finding is in agreement with some studies [37, 38] but not with other studies [39]. It can be concluded that considering cultural and religious factors, it is more common to protect the privacy of female patients than it is to protect the privacy of male patients. Therefore, the higher privacy scores among female patients in the current study may be related to the cultural context of the study.

Moreover, this research found that as the extent of patients’ burns increases, the scores on overall dignity, as well as dimensions such as privacy, autonomy, and respect decreases. This implies that patients with major burns might have their dignity and privacy compromised because of increased visibility during care. For this reason, nurses must formulate ways to improve the dignity, privacy, respect, and autonomy of patients with severe burns. It is important to involve the patients in decisions concerning their care and protect their identity, beliefs, and any sensitive information [16]. In addition, patients with increased burns on sensitive areas such as the face and genitals tended to score low on respect, privacy, and communication compared to patients with burns on non-sensitive areas. This might be due to the changes in their physical appearance, body image, and self-perception [40]. Therefore, this implies that more emphasis on privacy and dignity is critical to patients who sustain burns in sensitive parts of the body together with the need to ensure respectful communication. We found no previous studies that analyzed dignity scores according to the burned body area and the percentage of burn.

Present findings on the perception of nurses about patient dignity revealed that nurses working in general burn units compared to ICU nurses assigned higher scores to preserve patient dignity, as well as the privacy and autonomy dimensions. Such differences may be due to a higher workload, poorer patient condition, and time constraints in ICUs, where patients often have more severe burns and less independence [41]. One study found that patients in an ICU reported positive experiences of dignity. This is despite the busy environment [42], but this did not compare the perceptions of ICU nurses compared to nurses in other units. Thus, it is not comparable with current findings. The current study suggests that supportive work environments and clear guidelines on maintaining patient dignity in ICUs should be promoted. The positive correlation of work experience in the burn units with the perception of patients’ autonomy needs in the current study is in line with the results of previous studies [18, 43] that suggested more experienced nurses understand and respond better to these needs. One study found no such correlation [29], which may be due to differences in patient needs and unit types. Therefore, targeted training and mentorship for less experienced nurses may help to improve patient dignity preservation.

Conclusion

This study found different perceptions among the nurses and patients with burn in regard to total dignity, and privacy and communication dimensions. There was a discrepancy so that patients reported lower levels than what was perceived by nurses. While both groups agreed on the matter of autonomy and respect of patients, areas where difference was noted suggested that nurses need to be more cognizant of the peculiar needs of patients with privacy and communication. Some groups of patients that were specifically identified in need of more attention include male patients (for greater attention to privacy), younger patients (who need more respect), patients with burns in sensitive areas (for greater communication and respect), and those having higher percentages of burns (who need more attention to dignity across parameters). In addition, ICU nurses and less experienced burn nurses should receive training to understand the principles of patient dignity, privacy, and autonomy. In addition, there must be improvement in the working conditions of nurses to be able to provide better patient care in these areas. Finally, the recommendations are that health care managers and policymakers utilize these findings to address programs directed toward enhancing hospital-level patient dignity and enhancing training for nurses working in burn care.

Limitation

The limitation of this study is that it was conducted in only one center, which may affect its generalizability.

Data availability

Data resource and statistical analysis outputs are available from the corresponding author for reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ICN:

International Council of Nurses

SPSS:

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

CVR:

Content validity Ratio

CVI:

Content Validity Index

ICU:

Intensive Care Unit

References

  1. Yakupu A, Zhang J, Dong W, Song F, Dong J, Lu S. The epidemiological characteristic and trends of burns globally. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1596.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Sarbazi E, Yousefi M, Khami B,Ettekal-Nafs R, Babazadeh T, Gaffari-Fam S. Epidemiology and the survival rate of burn-related injuries in Iran: a registry-based study. Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2019:32(1):3–9.

  3. Van Loey NE. Psychological impact of living with scars following burn injury. Textbook on Scar Management: State of the Art Management and Emerging Technologies. 2020:429–34.

  4. Zamanzadeh V, Valizadeh L, Lotfi M, Salehi F. Preserving self-concept in the burn survivors: a qualitative study. Indian J Palliat Care. 2015;21(2):182.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hicks D, Dignity. Its essential role in resolving conflict. Yale University Press; 2021.

  6. Parandeh A, Khaghanizade M, Mohammadi E, Mokhtari-Nouri J. Nurses’ human dignity in education and practice: an integrated literature review. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2016;21(1):1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Federation M. International Council of Nurses Code of Ethics for Nurses. 2015.

  8. Gallagher A, Li S, Wainwright P, Jones IR, Lee D. Dignity in the care of older people–a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. BMC Nurs. 2008;7(1):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hosseini FA, Momennasab M, Yektatalab S, Zareiyan A. Patients’ perception of dignity in Iranian general hospital settings. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(6):1777–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kadivar M, Mardani-Hamooleh M, Kouhnavard M. Concept analysis of human dignity in patient care: Rodgers’ evolutionary approach. J Med Ethics History Med. 2018;11.

  11. Johnston B, Papadopoulou C, Östlund U, Hunter K, Andrew J, Buchanan D. What’s dignity got to do with it? Patient experience of the dignity care intervention: a qualitative evaluation study. SAGE Open Nurs. 2017;3:2377960817699839.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Xiao J, Ng MS, Yan T, Chow KM, Chan CW. How patients with cancer experience dignity: an integrative review. Psycho-oncology. 2021;30(8):1220–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall S, Goddard C, Speck PW, Martin P, Higginson IJ. It makes you feel that somebody is out there caring: a qualitative study of intervention and control participants’ perceptions of the benefits of taking part in an evaluation of dignity therapy for people with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;45(4):712–25.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gerrek M, Behmer Hansen R, Khandelwal A. 440 Ethics in burn care: a review. J Burn Care Res. 2018;39(suppl1):S192–3.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gunasekar A. Opening dialogue on current ethical issues in burn care. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(6):527–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tehranineshat B, Rakhshan M, Torabizadeh C, Fararouei M, Gillespie M. The dignity of burn patients: a qualitative descriptive study of nurses, family caregivers, and patients. BMC Nurs. 2021;20:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bagheri H, Yaghmaei F, Ashktorab T, Zayeri F. Relationship between illness-related worries and social dignity in patients with heart failure. Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(5):618–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peyvakht A, Sanagoo A, Behnampour N, Roshandel G, Jouybari L. Perspectives of nurses and the elderly hospitalized patients eegard respecting the human dignity of elderly patients in educational and medical centers of Golestan university of medical sciences in 2019. J Nurs Educ. 2020;9(3):79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wang L, Wei Y, Xue L, Guo Q, Liu W. Dignity and its influencing factors in patients with cancer in North China: a cross-sectional study. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(2):188–93.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sardoo AM, Abbaszade A, Rafiei H, Sardoo HM, Borhani F. Effect of dignity therapy model on stress, anxiety and depression of haemodialysis patients. Int J Healthc. 2015;1(1):28.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mohammadi F, Tabatabaei HS, Mozafari F, Gillespie M. Caregivers’ perception of women’s dignity in the delivery room: a qualitative study. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27(1):116–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mohammadi F, Oshvandi K, Khodaveisi M, Cheraghi F, Tehrani TH, Khalili A, Kyle H. Caregivers’ perception of teenagers’ dignity in end of life stages: a phenomenological study. Nurs Ethics. 2023;30(1):121–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohammadi F, Oshvandi K. Male nursing students’ perception of dignity in neonatal intensive care units. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27(2):381–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones DA. Human dignity in healthcare: a virtue ethics approach. New Bioeth. 2015;21(1):87–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bovero A, Tosi C, Botto R, Pidinchedda A, Gottardo F, Asta G, Torta R. A qualitative study to explore healthcare providers’ perspectives on end-of-life patients’ dignity. How can dignity be defined, and which strategies exist to maintain dignity? J Cancer Educ. 2020:1–8.

  26. Kwame A, Petrucka PM. A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):158.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Šaňáková Š, Čáp J. Dignity from the nurses’ and older patients’ perspective: a qualitative literature review. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(5):1292–309.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Torabizadeh C, Ebrahimi H, Mohammadi E, Valizadeh S. Incongruent perceptions among nurses and patients: a qualitative study of patient’s dignity in Iran. Ethics Behav. 2013;23(6):489–500.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Torabizadeh C, Jafari S, Momennasab M. Patient’s dignity: viewpoints of patients and nurses in hospitals. Hosp Top. 2021;99(4):187–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jafari S. The comparison of hospitalized patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of patient dignity in the selected hospitals of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, MSc thesis, Fatemeh (PBUH) School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences; 2017.

  31. Hoseinian M, Bidgoli AM, Sadat Z, Ajorpaz NM. Investigating the level of respect for human dignity and its related factors in providing care for the elderly with COVID-19 in Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Kashan, 2021. J Educ Health Promotion. 2023;12(1):280.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ferri P, Muzzalupo J, Di Lorenzo R. Patients’ perception of dignity in an Italian general hospital: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Li Y-C, Feng Y-H, Ma S-C, Wang H-H. Dignity and related factors in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional study. Asian Nurs Res. 2023;17(1):8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hadler R, Goldshore M, Rosa W, Nelson J. What do I need to know about you? The patient dignity question, age, and proximity to death among patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(6):5175–86.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu X, Liu Z, Cheng Q, Xu N, Liu H, Ying W. Effects of meaning in life and individual characteristics on dignity in patients with advanced cancer in China: a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:2319–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hosseini A, Rezaei M, Bahrami M, Abbasi M, Hariri H. The relationship between dignity status and quality of life in Iranian terminally ill patients with cancer. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2017;22(3):178.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Valizadeh F, Ghasemi SF. Human privacy respect from viewpoint of hospitalized patients. Eur J Transl Myol. 2020;30(1).

  38. Kim K, Han Y, Kim J-s. Nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of privacy protection behaviours and information provision. Nurs Ethics. 2017;24(5):598–611.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Klůzová Kráčmarová L, Tomanová J, Černíková KA, Tavel P, Langová K, Greaves PJ, Kisvetrová H. Perception of dignity in older men and women in the early stages of dementia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Shokre ES, Mohammed SEM, Elhapashy HMM, Elsharkawy NB, Ramadan OME, Abdelaziz EM. The effectiveness of the psychosocial empowerment program in early adjustment among adult burn survivors. BMC Nurs. 2024;23(1):45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bidabadi FS, Yazdannik A, Zargham-Boroujeni A. Patient’s dignity in intensive care unit: a critical ethnography. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(3):738–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moen EK, Nåden D. Intensive care patients’ perceptions of how their dignity is maintained: a phenomenological study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31(5):285–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Karimi H, Ajorpaz NM, Aghajani M. Older adults’ and nurses perception of dignity in the setting of Iranian hospitals: a cross-sectional study. Cent Eur J Nurs Midwifery. 2019;10(4):1134–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript originated from the Master’s thesis of Davood Zarei. The authors express deep gratitude to Vice Chancellor for Research of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. We would like to thank all participants who willingly contributed to the study, and Mr A.M. Keshtvarz and the Center for Development of Clinical Research at Namazi Hospital for their invaluable support in statistical analysis. We also appreciate all the nurses and patients who participated in this study.

Funding

The current study was funded by the Vice Chancellor for Research at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Shiraz, Iran (grant no. 28248). The funding body did not play any roles in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Davood Zarei

  2. Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Zahra Khademian

  3. Department of Nursing, Community Based Psychiatric Care Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Azita Jaberi

  4. Shiraz Burn and Wound Healing Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Abdolkhalegh Keshavarzi

Authors
  1. Davood Zarei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zahra Khademian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Azita Jaberi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdolkhalegh Keshavarzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DZ, ZKh, AJ and AK significantly contributed to the study’s design. DZ gathered the data. DZ, ZKh and AJ conducted the data analysis and interpretation. DZ and ZKh were involved in writing the manuscript draft. ZKh and DZ critically revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zahra Khademian.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Science (ethics code: IR.SUMS.NUMING.REC.1402.056). We adopted all procedures according to the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant guidelines and regulations. In this regard, we obtained signed informed consent from all patients after explaining the research aim and methods. We also explained to them that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without any consequences. Moreover, we maintained confidentiality of all participant data.

Consent to participate

We received written consent from the participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zarei, D., Khademian, Z., Jaberi, A. et al. Comparing nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of dignity in burn care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs 24, 350 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12912-025-02930-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12912-025-02930-3

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us