SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2025
Introduction and Systematic Review of the Good Nursing Care Scale.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Instruments for Assessing Nursing Care Quality: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
AIM(S): To provide an introduction to the Good Nursing Care Scale (GNCS) and systematically review the application of the scale in health research.
designSystematic review.
methodsEmpirical studies published in English or Finnish in peer-reviewed journals or as a summary of a PhD thesis where the scale was used for data collection amongst patients were included. Analysis was made by using descriptive statistics, narrative analysis, and evaluation of psychometric properties. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus in October 2023.
resultsA total of 26 full-text studies and summaries of PhD theses were included in the review. The GNCS has been developed systematically, and the theoretical structure has remained stable. The studies indicate a high level of patient-centered quality of nursing care. Validity and reliability evaluation and reporting were systematic in the studies and mainly indicate sufficient level. Variations between countries are not large, supporting the international use of the GNCS.
conclusionsPatient-centered quality of nursing care is predominantly at high levels. However, systematic evaluation is needed to provide longitudinal data. For that purpose, the GNCS is one potential instrument. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Support for the use of existing, tested instruments is encouraged to provide critical ideas for the future needs of nurse practitioners, managers, teachers and researchers. IMPACT: This paper impacts researchers interested in systematic evaluation of the patient-centered quality of nursing care and for practitioners taking care of patients. For researchers, it introduces a relevant instrument, the GNCS, for analysing the quality or for comparing the quality with other instruments. For practitioners, it produces evidence of the usability of the GNCS. REPORTING
methodPRISMA guided the systematic review, and the COSMIN guideline was used for quality appraisal of included studies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public contribution.
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.