ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Nurses' Self-Reported Professional Competence: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Regional Teaching Hospital in Sweden.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. 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.
- Development and validation of a core competency evaluation scale for otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ENT-HNS) nurse specialists.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- The moderating role of knowledge sharing behavior between innovative behavior and nursing competency: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo investigate and compare the self-assessed professional competence of registered nurses, specialist nurses and midwives at a regional teaching hospital in Sweden. Moreover, to explore associations between potential predictive background factors and self-assessed professional competence.
designA cross-sectional study.
methodsConvenience sample of 615 nurses answered a questionnaire; sociodemographic data, 35-item Nurse Professional Competence Scale, Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Fisher's non-parametric permutation test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, Spearman rank correlation test, calculating sum score. Multiple linear regressions and reliability testing with Cronbach's alpha.
resultsResponse rate, 58.7%; mean age, 44.7 years; work experience, 0.2 years to 45 years (mean 16.4 years); 83.4% women. 82.4% bachelor's degree; out of these, 34.3% with an additional master's degree. 17.6% nursing diploma without an academic degree. The highest mean scores for the NPC Scale were in Value-based nursing care, Medical and technical care. The lowest were in Care pedagogics and Development, leadership and organisation of nursing care. Total mean score 84.3, (79.3-90.0). Specialist nurses scored higher in all areas except Care pedagogics. Predictive factors indicated being a woman was positively associated with higher competence scores in all six areas, β coefficients 2.2-5.3 with p < 0.05. Longer nursing experience was positively associated with higher competence in Nursing care (β 0.17 per year, p = 0.01), Medical and technical care (β 0.14 per year, p = 0.01). The occupational self-efficacy scale was strongly positively associated with higher competence in all areas, β per scale step 0.42-0.63 with p < 0.0001. Nurses without academic degree had lower competence scores in several areas compared to bachelor's degree, β ranges from -3.47 to -2.31, p < 0.05.
conclusionUtilising competence data, the Swedish Enhanced Competence Development Model (vKUM) can effectively support the planning and management of ongoing professional competence development. REPORTING
methodStudy methods and results reported in adherence to STROBE checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The nurses contributed their consent, time and data to this study.
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.