ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
How Context Shapes Person-Centred Fundamental Care Through Nurse-Patient Relationships: Validation of the FoC Intelligence Modelling Tool and Predictive Pathway Analysis.
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 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.
- How Context Shapes Person-Centred Fundamental Care Through Nurse-Patient Relationships: Validation of the FoC Intelligence Modelling Tool and Predictive Pathway Analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Getting Person-Centred Fundamental Care Right: Past Discourse and Future Directions.Journal of advanced nursing · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Fundamentals of Care (FoC) Framework emphasises that care quality depends not only on clinical tasks but also on interpersonal relationships and the organisational context in which care is delivered. Although patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) have gained relevance in capturing these aspects, tools based on the FoC Framework remain limited in non-English-speaking settings.
objectivesTo psychometrically validate the Spanish version of the FoC Intelligence Modelling Tool (FoC-IMT) and explore predictive relationships among the FoC dimensions: Context, Relationship and Integration of Care.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 1053 hospitalised patients in southern Spain. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were performed, alongside a mediation analysis using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to examine directional relationships among constructs.
resultsEFA and CFA supported a two-factor model-Context and Integration of Care-with excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.97). CFA showed a moderate correlation between these factors. However, PLS-SEM mediation analysis revealed a directional model in which Context influences Relationship (β = 0.39), which in turn predicts Integration of Care (β = 0.89). Although embedded within Integration under CFA, the Relationship showed independent predictive power in PLS-SEM, validating its conceptual importance. This aligns with the foundational assumption of the FoC Framework: that caregiving quality is shaped not only by tasks or procedures but by the broader environment and interpersonal relationships in which care occurs.
conclusionsThe Spanish FoC-IMT Tool is a valid, reliable instrument for assessing person-centred care. The predictive model highlights the pivotal role of therapeutic relationships in delivering integrated, high-quality care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Hospitalised patients contributed directly by responding to the FoC-IMT survey, thereby shaping the psychometric validation and predictive model. Patients were not involved in the study design, conduct or manuscript preparation.
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.