Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39737059›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025

Demoralization: A concept analysis through a scoping review methodology.

Rongyu Hua, Patraporn Bhatarasakoon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Rongyu HuaFaculty of Nursing, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Patraporn BhatarasakoonFaculty of Nursing, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Demoralization is a complex construct comprising of several clinical phenomena that has gained increasing interest in clinical practice and research; however, the concept needs to be sufficiently specified and clearly described. A concept analysis of demoralization is necessary to integrate previous research findings and establish the scientific foundation for future intervention research. Aim: To analyze the concept of demoralization in terms of its antecedents, attributes, consequences, and empirical referents in health. Methods: A concept analysis was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines scoping review method and mapping information through the Walker and Avant concept analysis framework. Electronic databases, including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, were searched until September 15, 2024. The grey literature and other minor non-indexed publications were also reviewed. Results: A total of 106 articles were included in the review. Antecedents included medical illness, symptom burden, low social support and coping difficulties. Attributes were identified as follows: dysphoria, disheartenment, helplessness, hopelessness, loss of meaning and purpose, and sense of failure. Consequences included poor quality of life, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and desire to die. The concept of demoralization was illustrated through a model case, one exhibiting borderline criterion and another displaying challenge. Conclusion: This scoping review clarifies the clinical definition of demoralization, distinguishing it from common language usage and from other emotional symptoms frequently experienced by patients. Implications for Practice: The identified attributes of demoralization play vital roles in health assessments and should guide nurses in providing appropriate patient care early on. Interventions should address the concept's antecedents and consequences.

Indexed as

Concept analysisDemoralizationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID39737059
PMCPMC11683301

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.