ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring the core characteristics of competence in healthcare assistants: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe global healthcare landscape is undergoing a significant shift in demographics, evolving disease epidemiology and an ageing population, prompting the expansion of healthcare roles, including the healthcare assistant (HCA). However, there remains limited clarity regarding the scope and standards of their competence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be conducted following the updated Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework. Five databases encompassing PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) will be searched. Selected studies will include all types of studies on the competence of HCAs. Two reviewers will independently perform the screening and data extraction process. The quality of evidence in this review will be assessed by the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis will be presented using the narrative descriptions and tabular illustrations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be employed for transparent reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical clearance is required for this review. The final review will be submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, the results of the final review will be disseminated both locally and nationally to inform clinical practice. REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework. Registration number is OSF.IO/5RGUC.
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.