ArticleBMC nursing2026
Evaluation of self-efficacy of nurses in symptom management practices: a systematic review of psychometric properties.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-efficacy of nurses in symptom management plays a critical role in the quality of patient care. Although several instruments have been developed to assess this construct, their psychometric properties have not been systematically evaluated. This systematic review aims to support the selection and application of reliable and valid instruments that can be used to identify and evaluate the self-efficacy of nurses in symptom management.
methodsThe systematic review of measurement characteristics is conducted in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases for relevant studies published before January 1, 2025. The psychometric properties of the identified PROMs were appraised against the COSMIN standards and the evidence was synthesized with a modified GRADE approach.
resultsThis analysis included 38 studies, each of which reported unique patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The participants were predominantly nurses and nursing students. The included studies generally lacked comprehensive psychometric property assessments, with content validity, structural validity and internal consistency being the most frequently evaluated characteristics. Insufficient evaluation of cross-cultural validity, measurement error and responsiveness meant that these PROMs could not be generalised. The results of the psychometric property assessments and overall ratings of the included PROMs varied considerably. Ultimately, six instruments were rated as recommended for use, indicating widespread methodological limitations of the remaining PROMs.
conclusionsThis review recommends six of 38 self-efficacy scales for nurses’ symptom management, though most tools exhibited weak content validity. Future work should improve item evaluation in both target population and experts, and further assess cross-cultural validity of recommended scales.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42025641768). 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.