ArticleNursing open2026
Reflective Practice and Related Factors Among Specialty Nurses in Tertiary General Hospitals Across China: A Latent Profile Analysis.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify distinct subgroups of reflective practice among specialty nurses in tertiary general hospitals using latent profile analysis (LPA), and to explore the influencing factors associated with subgroup classification.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsStudy participants were recruited via convenience sampling. An online questionnaire survey was conducted using the basic information questionnaire, the reflective practice questionnaire, and the workplace spirituality scale. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify subgroups of specialty nurses' reflective practice. Additionally, univariate analysis and logistic regression were conducted to find the predictive factors of different categories. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from 817 eligible specialty nurses across 13 tertiary general hospitals in China from April to June 2024.
resultsA total of 817 specialty nurses were included, identifying three categories of reflective practice: low reflective practice group (23.38%), moderate reflective practice group (37.58%) and high reflective practice group (39.04%). Specialty nurses who were married, held positions, had higher monthly incomes, and exhibited stronger workplace spirituality were more likely to have higher levels of reflective practice than the other profiles.
conclusionThe majority of specialty nurses fell into the moderate and high reflective practice groups. The marital status, job position, monthly income and workplace spirituality of specialty nurses were associated with reflective practice. Targeted interventions may help enhance the reflective practice of specialty nurses. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The findings of this study offer an evidence base for nursing administrators to design tailored intervention programmes. Particular emphasis should be placed on specialty nurses in the low reflective practice group, whose reflective practice may be improved through the enhancement of workplace spirituality via structured mentorship, foundational reflective training and supportive organizational strategies. IMPACT: The heterogeneity and predictive factors related to specialty nurses' reflective practice in tertiary general hospitals provide valuable evidence for the formulation of individualized interventions. Nursing administrators should understand the importance of reflective practice, offer performance rewards and educational opportunities for specialty nurses, implement magnetic management strategies to enhance workplace spirituality, thereby effectively improving the level of reflective practice among specialty nurses. REPORTING
methodThis study was reported in accordance with the EQUATOR guidelines and followed the STROBE statement for cross-sectional studies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: No patient or public contributions.
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.