ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Perceived Capability, Opportunity and Motivation to Deliver Fundamental Nursing Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Neurological Settings.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pressure Injury Prevention: A Systematic Review.International wound journal · 2026Pooled it
- Perceived Capability, Opportunity and Motivation to Deliver Fundamental Nursing Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Neurological Settings.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelivering nursing care to patients' fundamental needs in neurological settings is challenging due to complex needs such as long-term care, physical disability and cognitive or communicative impairment.
aimTo examine how registered nurses and nurse assistants perceive their capability, opportunity and motivation to deliver fundamental nursing care and use this insight to inform implementation strategies based on the Fundamentals of Care framework.
designCross-sectional survey.
methodsThe questionnaire, grounded in the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation (COM-B) model and the Fundamentals of Care framework, was distributed to all nursing staff (n = 404) in four neurological departments at a university hospital in Denmark. Level of agreement was calculated as the proportion of responses in the top two Likert categories ('to some extent agree' and 'completely agree') and categorised as low (< 60%), medium (60%-85%) or high (> 85%). Quantitative results were analysed descriptively and inferentially; open-text answers were examined using deductive content analysis.
resultsThe response rate was 63%. Agreement was high for capability (90.6%), motivation (89.2%) and addressing physical needs (85.2%), while opportunity (75.3%) and relational care (69.1%) were lower. The relational domain scored notably high for taking time to listen (95.8%) and low for evaluating the nurse-patient relationship (43.5%). Nurse assistants showed significantly higher agreement in the physical care domain than registered nurses. Variation across departments highlighted higher agreement in spinal cord injury and neurology compared to anaesthesia, pain, respiratory and traumatic brain injury units.
conclusionNursing staff show strong internal drive and perceived competence-particularly in physical care-but face structural barriers in relational nursing and continuity. Implementation strategies should leverage high motivation, strengthen leadership engagement, ensure resource allocation and systematically integrate relational care into practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
trial registrationDanish Data Protection Agency (P20231246).
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.