ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development of a core competency evaluation indicator system for weight management nurses: a Delphi and analytic hierarchy process study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWeight management services increasingly require nurses to contribute to risk assessment, behavioural support, multidisciplinary coordination and long-term follow-up. However, there is limited consensus on the competencies required for nurses working in this emerging field. This study aimed to develop an evaluation indicator system for the core competencies of weight management nurses.
methodsA methodological study was conducted using semi-structured interviews, grounded theory coding, two rounds of Delphi consultation and the analytic hierarchy process. An initial indicator pool was developed from interviews with 20 weight management professionals and literature review. From April to June 2026, 18 experts in clinical nursing, nursing management, nursing education, clinical medicine and health management rated the importance of the indicators. Indicator screening was based on the mean importance score, coefficient of variation and expert comments. Expert consensus was evaluated using the coefficient of variation and Kendall's coefficient of concordance, and indicator weights were determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
resultsThe valid response rate was 100.0% in both Delphi rounds, and the expert authority coefficient was 0.843. Kendall's coefficients of concordance for first-, second- and third-level indicators were 0.229, 0.183 and 0.139 in the first round and 0.241, 0.196 and 0.171 in the second round, respectively; all were statistically significant. In the second round, the coefficients of variation for all indicators were less than 0.25. The final system included 5 first-level, 21 second-level and 62 third-level indicators. The first-level weights were intervention implementation (0.211), knowledge integration (0.206), professional motivation (0.203), multidisciplinary coordination (0.198) and professional development (0.183).
conclusionsThe indicator system provides a structured framework for competency-based training, selection and evaluation of weight management nurses. Further validation in different healthcare settings is needed before broad application.
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.