Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29156087›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2018

Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene.

David A Richards, Angelique Hilli, Claire Pentecost, Victoria A Goodwin, Julia Frost

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Low-value and high-value care recommendations in nursing: A systematic assessment of clinical practice guidelines.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The development of nursing-sensitive indicators: A critical discussion.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David A RichardsInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8821-5027
Angelique HilliInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.
Claire PentecostInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2048-5538
Victoria A GoodwinInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.
Julia FrostInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-DG-1214-10001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

objectivesTo determine the effects of nursing interventions for people's nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs.

backgroundPatient experience of health care is sensitive to nursing quality. A refocus on fundamental nursing care is undermined by lack of evidence of effectiveness for interventions in core areas such as elimination, nutrition, mobility and hygiene.

designSystematic review.

methodsWe searched for and included experimental studies on interventions by professionally qualified and unregistered nurses that addressed participants' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We extracted data on scope, quality and results of studies followed by descriptive narrative synthesis of included study outcomes using a novel form of harvest plots.

resultsWe included 149 studies, 35 nutrition, 56 elimination, 16 mobility, 39 hygiene and three addressing two or more areas simultaneously (67 randomised controlled trials, 32 non-randomised controlled trials and 50 uncontrolled trials). Studies into interventions on participant self-management of nutrition (n = 25), oral health (n = 26), catheter care (n = 23) and self-management of elimination (n = 21) were the most prevalent. Most studies focussed their outcomes on observational or physiological measures, with very few collecting patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, experience or self-reported symptoms. All but 13 studies were of low quality and at significant risk of bias. The majority of studies did not define primary outcomes, included multiple measures of identical concepts, used inappropriate analyses and did not conform to standard reporting quality criteria.

conclusionsThe current evidence for fundamental nursing care interventions is sparse, of poor quality and unfit to provide evidence-based guidance to practising nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Researchers in nursing internationally should now undertake a programme of work to produce evidence for clinical practice in the fundamentals of care that is reliable, replicable and robust.

Indexed as

Digestive System Physiological PhenomenaMotor ActivityHumansHygieneNursing CareNutrition TherapyTreatment Outcomeexperimental designfundamental carenursingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29156087
PMCPMC6001513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.