ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Construction of an evaluation indicator system for humanistic care quality in nursing homes.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of humanistic care services in nursing homes is of great importance for improving the quality of life of older people, enhancing their sense of self-worth, and meeting their spiritual and psychological needs. However, there is currently a lack of standardized criteria and validated tools for the systematic assessment of the quality of humanistic care in nursing homes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive indicator system for evaluating the quality of humanistic care in nursing homes.
methodsGuided by the Quality Caring Model and Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory as the theoretical framework, an initial evaluation indicator system was developed through a literature review and semi-structured interviews. Based on the preliminary indicator system, an expert consultation questionnaire was designed, and two rounds of Delphi expert consultation were conducted with 32 experts from relevant fields to further refine and optimize the evaluation indicator system by integrating expert opinions. Subsequently, the Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied to determine the weight of each indicator, and consistency testing was performed.
resultsThe effective recovery rates of the two rounds of expert consultation questionnaires were 94.12% and 100.00%, respectively, and the expert authority coefficients were 0.850 and 0.859. The Kendall's coefficients of concordance for the two rounds of expert consultation were 0.167 and 0.269, respectively (P < 0.001). Ultimately, a quality evaluation indicator system for humanistic care in nursing homes was established, comprising 3 primary-level indicators, 10 secondary-level indicators, and 38 tertiary-level indicators.
conclusionThe quality evaluation indicator system for humanistic care in nursing homes developed in this study demonstrates a certain degree of scientific rigor and rationality. It can provide a theoretical reference for promoting the standardization of humanistic care processes and the systematization of quality management in nursing homes in China, and offers a systematic framework for the subsequent evaluation and improvement of the quality of humanistic care.
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.