ArticleBMC nursing2025
Adapting nursing education to improve care for persons with disabilities: a systematic review of curriculum changes and training effectiveness.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Knowledge and attitude of nursing students toward caring for children with disabilities.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Correction: Adapting nursing education to improve care for persons with disabilities: a systematic review of curriculum changes and training effectiveness.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo ensure that nurses are equipped to provide effective care, it is essential to examine available evidence on how nursing curricula have adapted to meet the unique health needs of persons with disabilities. This study assesses how pedagogical strategies and interventions have changed in nursing education to develop disability competencies. It also examines whether such curriculum changes have been evaluated to assess their effectiveness in developing competencies.
methodsA systematic review based on a literature search in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, PsycInfo, ERIC, CINAHL and Google Scholar. The study includes peer-reviewed papers, either qualitative or quantitative, that describe the development of disability-related education in undergraduate or postgraduate nursing training. With no time frame or publication restriction. The quality of the paper was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). 46 studies have met al.l inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis.
resultsIn total, were 2803 articles found in the initial search across seven online electronic databases. Finally, a thorough review was conducted, incorporating 46 studies. Most of the studies come from high income countries. Among the 46 studies reviewed, 16 employed qualitative methodologies, 22 studies adopted quantitative descriptive designs, relying primarily on cross-sectional surveys and pre-post evaluations. Seven studies used mixed methods.Three major themes emerged from this analysis a) enhancing nurses' understanding of disability, b) pedagogical strategies to work with persons with disabilities and their families in a clinical setting, and c) diverse approaches to clinical simulation in nursing education. The results show that most educational interventions are not assessing their impact in developing disability competencies. DISCUSSION: Many interventions aim to raise disability awareness, challenge prejudice, and promote more inclusive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. While these goals are important, there is limited evidence demonstrating their effectiveness in enhancing nursing practice competencies. Research on strategies that equip nursing students with the core skills needed to provide quality care to people with disabilities remains scarce.
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.