ArticleBMJ open2025
Genomic literacy in nursing: a systematic scoping review of the literature.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptualization, Contexts, and Measurement of Nursing Theoretical Literacy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Learning about the genetic risk in my family: Preferences of Italian nurses.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Closing the Implementation Gap in Precision Nursing Care.The journal of nursing research : JNR · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map the available evidence on genomic literacy among clinical nurses, nursing students and nursing faculty.
designSystematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier and OpenGrey. The review included studies published in English from 1 January 2001 to 28 May 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies that referenced 'genomic literacy' in health-related or educational contexts and focused on nurses, nursing students or nursing faculty were included. Articles had to provide data on study design, population, setting, data collection tools and outcomes related to genomic literacy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted and summarised data on study characteristics, including publication year, country, setting, aims, methods, population, assessment tools, outcomes and educational interventions. Findings were synthesised descriptively.
resultsOf 1534 studies identified, 63 met the inclusion criteria. Most were observational (69.8%) and conducted in the USA (41.3%), focusing on clinical nurses (50.8%) in educational (47.6%) or clinical (46.0%) settings. Genomic literacy was predominantly assessed using ad hoc tools (46.0%) or the Genomic Nursing Concept Inventory, revealing low literacy levels. Mean scores ranged from 5.66 to 16.21 out of 31 (18.3%-52.3% correct answers). Educational interventions demonstrated effectiveness in improving genomic knowledge.
conclusionsGenomic literacy among nurses, students and faculty remains low, with notable heterogeneity across countries. Many studies used non-standardised assessment tools with uncertain reliability and genomic literacy among nursing faculty remains underexplored. Educational interventions show promise in enhancing genomic literacy.
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.