Observational studyInternational nursing review2025
Study characteristics and methods in a national nursing and allied health research programme: A descriptive study.
Observational study in International nursing review, 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.
- Study characteristics and methods in a national nursing and allied health research programme: A descriptive study.International nursing review · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe the characteristics, methods and publications of studies funded by a French research programme for nursing and allied health professions.
backgroundIn some countries, the emerging field of nursing and allied health research is supported by funding programmes that are poorly documented.
designObservational descriptive study.
methodsData from funded studies in 2012-2020 were identified in publications, registries or an institutional repository by two authors in April-May 2022. Methods (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method), study designs using the mixed-methods appraisal tool and thematic categories were extracted.
resultsIn total, 212 studies were funded. The yearly number of studies has risen from 19 in 2012 to 33 in 2020. Eight nursing and allied health professions were represented among grant recipients, including 42% (89/212) of nurses. Half of the studies with identified methods were multicentric (91/185, 16% in 2012 and 71% in 2018). The median funding per study has risen from €63,471 in 2012 to €251,665 in 2020. The predominant methods were quantitative and interventional (144/185, 78%), with randomised controlled trials being the most frequent study design (125/144, 87%). Among the 38 quantitative observational studies, 14 (37%) were diagnostic studies. Three qualitative or mixed-methods studies were reported. The thematic categories included rehabilitation, nursing care, complementary medicine, patient education and metrology. Of the 50 completed studies, 18 publications were identified.
conclusionsThe number of studies, multicentric studies and funding appeared to increase over the nine-year study period. The predominance of high-level evidence studies is encouraging, although a limited number of studies have been published. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY: This study highlights the gradual involvement in a nursing and allied health research programme and the support needed to disseminate research.
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.