Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33314342›Full record

ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2021

Nursing competencies for family-centred care in the hospital setting: A multinational Q-methodology study.

Bram Hengeveld, Jolanda M Maaskant, Robert Lindeboom, Andrea P Marshall, Hester Vermeulen, Anne M Eskes

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Key factors associated with nurse retention and how they work: A mixed-methods study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Article
  3. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the TOGETHER Family-Reported Experience Measure of Nurse-Facilitated Family Engagement in Adult Acute Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Bram HengeveldLivio, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Jolanda M MaaskantEmma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Robert LindeboomDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Andrea P MarshallMenzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
Hester VermeulenScientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Anne M EskesMenzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1605-0195
Griffith University · AUAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAvans University of Applied Sciences · NLEmma Kinderziekenhuis · NLHAN University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimto identify: (1) nursing competencies for FCC in a hospital setting; and (2) to explore perspectives on these competencies among Dutch and Australian professionals including lecturers, researchers, Registered Nurses and policy makers.

designA multinational cross-sectional study using Q-methodology.

methodsFirst, an integrative review was carried out to identify known competencies regarding FCC and to develop the Q-set (search up to July 2018). Second, purposive sampling was used to ensure stakeholder involvement. Third, participants sorted the Q-set using a web-based system between May and August 2019. Lastly, the data were analysed using a by-person factor analysis. The commentaries on the five highest and lowest ranked competencies were thematically analysed.

resultsThe integrative review identified 43 articles from which 72 competencies were identified. In total 69 participants completed the Q-sorting. We extracted two factors with an explained variance of 24%. The low explained variance hampered labelling. Based on a post-hoc qualitative analysis, four themes emerged from the competencies that were considered most important, namely: (a) believed preconditions for FCC; (b) promote a partnership between nurses, patients and families; (c) be a basic element of nursing; and (d) represent a necessary positive attitude and strong beliefs of the added value of FCC. Three themes appeared from the competencies that were considered least important because they: (a) were not considered a specific nursing competency; (b) demand a multidisciplinary approach; or (c) require that patients and families take own responsibility.

conclusionsAmong healthcare professionals, there is substantial disagreement on which nursing competencies are deemed most important for FCC. IMPACT: Our set of competencies can be used to guide education and evaluate practicing nurses in hospitals. These findings are valuable to consider different views on FCC before implementation of new FCC interventions into nursing practice.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceHospitalsAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansclinical competenceeducationfactor analysisfamily nursingnursesnursingqualitative researchstakeholder participationstatistical

Identifiers

PMID33314342
PMCPMC8048472
OpenAlexW3113102595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.