ArticleBMC nursing2025
Assessing delirium knowledge among health care professionals: findings from a scoping review.
Article in BMC nursing, 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.
- Improving delirium knowledge and recognition confidence in nursing homes through an e-learning program: a pre-post study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Relevance and Feasibility of a "Geriatric Delirium Pass" for Older Patients with Elective Surgeries: Findings from a Multi-Methods Study.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium is highly prevalent among older adults in various healthcare settings. Healthcare professionals' knowledge is crucial for preventing, recognizing, and managing delirium and delirium-related adverse outcomes. Despite its importance, little is known about how delirium knowledge is assessed.
objectivesTo map instruments and items used to assess delirium knowledge among healthcare professionals.
designA scoping review based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO to include studies that assessed delirium knowledge among healthcare professionals.
resultsAfter removing duplicates, 760 studies were assessed for eligibility and 98 studies were included. Delirium knowledge was mainly assessed among nurses (57/98, 58.8%) and physicians (12/98, 12.4%) with a focus on critical care (32/98, 33.0%) over long-term care settings (4/98, 4.1%). Most studies used self-developed instruments (50/93, 53%), followed by original or modified versions of the Delirium Knowledge Questionnaire (14/93, 15%). Among the 32 identified instruments, limited evidence of validity and reliability was reported for six (18.8%). Analysis at the item level (n = 392 items) revealed five domains: (a) definition, signs and symptoms (81 items); (b) risk factors, incidence, and prevention (139 items); (c) detection and tools (89 items); (d) management and therapy (64 items); and (e) outcomes, prognosis and consequences (19 items).
conclusionsDelirium poses a significant burden on patients and on the healthcare system. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview on how healthcare professionals' delirium knowledge has been assessed. Further research in this field is needed to provide stronger evidence of instruments' validity and reliability and to explore delirium knowledge among healthcare professionals in long-term care settings.
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.