ArticlePloS one2025
Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canadian nursing regulators have implemented various innovations to reform regulatory approaches to address workforce challenges, system demands, governance reforms, and a drive for efficiency. Given the significant role that regulators play in influencing patient safety, workforce, and health system outcomes, decision-making must be evidence-informed. This review examined the nature, extent, and range of literature related to nursing regulation in Canada and how the existing scholarship aligns with emerging regulatory and health system trends to inform the development of a research agenda. The review was conducted following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and with the support of a medical research librarian. A total of 195 sources, including scholarly (n = 156, 80%) and grey literature sources (n = 39, 20%), were included and reviewed. Just over half of the included scholarly sources were empirical studies (n = 80, 51.3%). The number of publications has steadily increased over the last few decades, and the majority of sources were situated in a provincial/territorial context (n = 104, 53.3%), followed by the national (n = 67, 34.4%) and global context (n = 24, 12.3%). The majority of the literature was led by scholars or professional groups unaffiliated with nursing regulators (n = 129, 66.2%). In contrast, nursing regulators led, commissioned, or were involved in a smaller portion of sources (n = 66, 33.8%). The largest category of literature focused on regulatory models, governance structures, and reforms (n = 59, 30.3%); followed by registration and licensure (n = 57, 29.2%); nursing roles and standards (n = 53, 27.2%); conduct, complaints, and discipline (n = 13, 6.7%); continuing competence programs (n = 11, 5.7%); and education program approval/accreditation (n = 2, 1%). The current literature base related to nursing regulation in Canada is largely descriptive and non-empirical and may not provide sufficient evidence to inform regulatory decision-making. This highlights opportunities for regulators and researchers to enhance collaboration to co-create research agendas that can maximize knowledge development and mobilization efforts.
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.