ArticleBMC nursing2025
Disentangling the configurational drivers of nursing science popularization: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis using WeChat data.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective communication of nursing science through social media platforms represents a critical strategy for bridging the gap between professional nursing knowledge and public health needs. However, empirical research on nursing science popularization through international social media platforms remains limited, with existing studies often focusing on single determining factors without examining their complex interactions.
methodsThis study employed fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify configurational pathways that drive effective communication of nursing science popularization on WeChat. Guided by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), we analyzed 269 nursing popularization articles published on the official WeChat account of the Chinese Nursing Association from April 2022 to April 2024. The purpose was to examine how central route factors (topic, content complexity, information entropy, organizational structure, presentation mode) and peripheral route factors (publication time, position, title sentiment, title tone) combine to enhance communication effectiveness, measured by the Single Text Communication Index.
resultsOur findings revealed eight distinct pathways (H1-H8) for achieving effective communication of nursing popularization articles. These pathways fell into two categories: seven configurations where publication position was the sole core variable, and one configuration where article topic, information entropy, organizational structure, and title sentiment were core variables. The first category comprised three sub-types: Media Integration Type, Health Knowledge Popularization Type, and Disease Knowledge Popularization Type. Results demonstrated equifinality and causal asymmetry—multiple pathways achieve similar outcomes, and factors promoting success differ from those causing failure.
conclusionCommunication effectiveness of nursing popularization articles results from multiple interacting factors rather than single variables. This study advances health communication knowledge by demonstrating how ELM’s dual-route framework operates in digital contexts through configurational rather than additive interactions. Healthcare communicators should establish topic classification mechanisms, develop targeted strategies, leverage multimedia elements, and enhance publication techniques based on content quality. These findings provide an evidence-based framework for enhancing nursing science communication effectiveness through social platforms. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.