ArticleNursing open2024
The relationship between core competence and perceived professional benefits among oncology specialist nurses: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Nursing open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organizational Silence and Work Engagement Among Chinese Clinical Nurses: The Mediating Role of Career Calling.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- The relationship between core competence and perceived professional benefits among oncology specialist nurses: A cross-sectional study.Nursing open · 2024Article
- The Significance of Communication and Treatment Expectations in Cancer Care: An Interview Study With Cancer Care Practitioners.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
- Cross-sectional Study Reveals Moderate Professional Benefits Among Nurses in a Multicultural Healthcare System.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo investigate the current state and influencing factors of core competence of oncology specialist nurses as well as the relationship between core competence and perceived professional benefits.
designA cross-sectional correlational survey.
methodsThis questionnaire survey was conducted with oncology specialist nurses working in a Grade III A (tertiary) Public Cancer Hospital in Jinan, China in March 2021. Based on informed consent, a convenience sampling of 350 nurses participated in the study, with 322 valid questionnaires collected. Using IBM SPSS21.0, the data were analysed to perform descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple stepwise regression analysis and Pearson's correlation analysis.
resultsThe overall average score of nurses' core competence was 224.28 ± 7.95, a medium level and the overall average score of their perceived professional benefits was 132.99 ± 5.05. Nurses' core competence was positively correlated with perceived professional benefits. The differences in professional title, education, working years and perceived professional benefits were statistically significant.
conclusionThe findings indicated that nurses' perceived professional benefit is an important factor affecting core competence. Nursing managers who take main responsibility for the quality of care should adopt measures to increase perceived professional benefits, which not only promote nurses' job satisfaction and happiness, but also enhance the development of their core competence and the quality of cancer care as well. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All participants contributed to the conducting of this study by completing self-reported questionnaires.
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.