ReviewNursing open2026
Constructing A Core Competency Evaluation Index System for Incontinence Specialist Nurses: A Delphi Study.
Review in Nursing open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to construct a core competency evaluation index system for incontinence specialist nurses; clarify the core competency elements required for incontinence nursing work; and provide a theoretical foundation for a comprehensive, objective and scientific evaluation of incontinence specialist nurses.
designA Delphi study design was adopted.
methodsBased on the theoretical framework of the Competency Framework for Registered Nurses in China and related literature, a preliminary core competency evaluation index system for continence specialist nurses was determined by conducting semi-structured interviews. Subsequently, through two rounds of the Delphi method, 27 medical experts, nursing educators and managers, and clinical nursing experts from 16 provinces, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Anhui and Chongqing, and two special administrative regions, including Hong Kong and Macao and Singapore, were consulted by letter. Indicators with a mean importance score ≥ 4.00, full score rate ≥ 20% and coefficient of variation ≤ 0.25 were retained.
resultsThe effective recovery rates of the expert letter inquiries' two rounds were 90% and 100%. The Kendall's coefficient of agreement (W) values obtained from the two rounds of expert inquiries in this study were 0.150-0.244 and 0.129-0.173, respectively, (p < 0.001). Their Kendall coefficients were 0.152 and 0.128, respectively, with an expert authority coefficient of 0.930 (p < 0.001). The final evaluation index system included 6, 17 and 70 first-, second- and third-level indicators, respectively.
conclusionsOur study constructed a core competency evaluation index system for incontinence specialist nurses. The construction process-though scientific-must be verified in practice. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The construction of a core competency evaluation index system for incontinence specialist nurses may help develop training programmes for them, facilitate the comprehensive evaluation of their abilities and act as a theoretical and practical reference in this regard. This study fills the research gap vis-à-vis constructing a core competency evaluation index system for incontinence specialist nurses.
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.