ArticleBMJ open2024
Development of a tool for assessing the clinical competency of Chinese master's nursing students based on the mini-CEX: a Delphi method study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of the modified Mini-CEX combined with the SBAR model in the experimental teaching of health assessment course: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring the reflective practice training needs of Master of Nursing Specialist students: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Constructing an evaluation index system for clinical nursing practice teaching quality using a Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process-based approach.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo construct a scientific and systematic competency evaluation tool for master of nursing specialists (MNS) and to provide a reference for the training, assessment and competency evaluation of MNS.
methodsA first draft of the indicators for assessing MNS core competencies was developed on the basis of published research and group discussions. Between June and December 2020, the indicators were revised using two rounds of the Delphi expert consultation method, with questionnaires completed by 16 experts from five provinces in China.
resultsThe valid retrieval rate of the two questionnaires was 100.00%, and the coefficient of expert authority was 0.931. The Kendall's concordance coefficients of the two rounds of questionnaires were 0.136 (p<0.05) and 0.147 (p<0.05), respectively. Consensus was reached on the seven dimensions and 52 items of the MNS competency assessment instrument. The instrument dimensions included nurse‒patient communication (9 items), health assessment (7 items), clinical decision-making (8 items), operational skills (7 items), health promotion (6 items), humanistic care (9 items) and organisational effectiveness (6 items).
conclusionsThe MNS competency assessment tool constructed in this study is focused and highly credible. The findings can be used as a guide for the training, assessment and competence evaluation of MNS in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.