ArticleInternational journal of nursing knowledge2025
Determining awareness of and readiness for standardized nursing languages in a mid-level midwestern hospital and associated school of nursing.
Article in International journal of nursing knowledge, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining awareness of and readiness for standardized nursing languages in a mid-level midwestern hospital and associated school of nursing.International journal of nursing knowledge · 2025Article
- "I would like to use it more effectively…" nursing student's experiences with NANDA-I nursing terminology: a qualitative descriptive study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to examine knowledge, attitude, and barriers toward care planning documentation practices with standardized nursing languages (SNLs) of nurses and nursing students at a midwestern healthcare system, comparing student and nurse responses.
methodsCross-sectional surveys were given over a 2-month period with nurses and nursing students at different sites in a midwestern healthcare system, using convenience sampling. The Knowledge, Attitude, and Barriers to Using Standardized Nursing Languages and Current Practices Survey was adapted for use and re-tested for validity/reliability (Content Validity Index 0.81-1.00; Cronbach alpha = 0.82-0.99) with 28 Likert scale items measuring knowledge, attitude, and barriers. Descriptive statistics, composite scores, correlations, t-tests, and multiple regression were used to analyze the concepts of the tool.
findings134/400 RNs responded (34%); 109/116 students responded (93.9%). Data analyses indicate adequate to superior levels of knowledge related to SNLs and NANDA International, Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), and Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC), collectively referred to as NNN (NANDA, NIC, & NOC), positive attitudes toward SNLs/NNN and for adopting SNLs/NNN into documentation practices, but moderate to great barriers for implementation in practice. Barriers included lack of financial resources for change, lack of mentors, and lack of mandates to use SNLs. Students scored significantly higher than nurses in attitude only.
conclusionsPerceptions of nurses and student nurses for current documentation indicate awareness of inadequacy in existing systems and willingness to change existing systems for standardized languages, with perceived barriers to change/implementation of SNLs. Students were more positive about SNLs than nurses. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Major implications for nursing are to reevaluate electronic documentation systems and determine how to insert and easily apply SNLs in these systems, such that nursing care documentation is standardized, interoperable, effective, time-saving, and attainable.
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.