Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41725619›Full record

ArticleNursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals2026

How Scientific Is Nursing? Answers From A New Characterization of Science.

Claus Beisbart, Maya Zumstein-Shaha, Paul Hoyningen-Huene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Claus BeisbartInstitute of Philosophy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2731-6200
Maya Zumstein-ShahaSchool of Health Professions, Fachbereich Pflege, Berner Fachhochschule, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-3123
Paul Hoyningen-HueneInstitute of Philosophy, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0422-8806

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last few decades, nursing scholars have drawn on philosophy to establish the scientific status of nursing. However, well-known philosophical accounts of science, such as those by Popper and Kuhn, are primarily targeted at the pure natural sciences. Accordingly, the application of such accounts to nursing has led to dubious results. In this paper, we propose a fresh start and apply Hoyningen-Huene's recent account of science to nursing. According to Hoyningen-Huene, knowledge about a given topic such as nursing is scientific if, and only if, it is more systematic than other knowledge about this topic. Here, systematicity manifests in various dimensions such as description, explanation, and defense of knowledge claims. In our application of Hoyningen-Huene's account of science to nursing, we focus on current nursing practice and compare it with the state of nursing before the so-called Consensus Statement on Emerging Nursing Knowledge. Upon examining the dimensions considered by Hoyningen-Huene, we find that the knowledge currently used and gained by nurses is more systematic than it was before the Consensus Statement. For instance, in the dimension of prediction, knowledge has become more systematic through the use of classification systems. In the dimension of defending knowledge claims, systematicity has increased due to the use of measurement devices. According to our analysis, the scientific status of current nursing knowledge is partly due to the fact that nurses draw on knowledge from nursing science, a discipline that is organized like other scientific disciplines. Still, it is also the case that knowledge-gaining practices in nursing are more systematic than they were before the Consensus Statement.

Indexed as

NursingPhilosophy, NursingScienceHumansclassificationsconsensus statement on emerging nursing knowledgedemarcation problemnursing theoriesscientific knowledgesystematicity

Identifiers

PMID41725619
PMCPMC12926929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.