ArticleNursing open2026
ENGENDER NANDA Guideline: Ensuring Gender inclusion in NANDA-I. A Delphi Study.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo develop a guideline for the integration of the gender perspective in the use of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses.
designThe Delphi technique was used in order to reach consensus between two groups of experts: (a) in nursing diagnoses and (b) in gender, thus allowing us to draw up the guidelines to include the gender perspective in the three levels of the NANDA- taxonomy (domains, classes and diagnoses).
methodsThe Delphi study included four rounds. The first was carried out considering a qualitative approach to define the items of the guidelines followed by three Delphi rounds to reach consensus combining quantitative thresholds and qualitative feedback. Thirty experts were invited to participate in order to assess and reach consensus on two main criteria: relevance and feasibility of the items. Consensus was evaluated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of each item according to the scores obtained by the participating experts. The study followed the CREDES Guidelines.
resultsThe participants included 20 experts in gender and NANDA-I nursing diagnoses. The Delphi process yielded 14 indicators, organized into three domains. This process integrates the consideration of differentiating characteristics in terms of sex, the use of non-sexist language in the diagnosis, the consideration of the gender perspective in the process of clinical reasoning and the need for including gender experts in the process of translating NANDA-I language into languages that use binary gender nouns. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public involvement occurred in the design or conduct of this study. REPORTING
methodIn order to allow critical appraisal of the methodology and resulting guidance, the study followed the CREDES Guidelines, a reporting standard for Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies.
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.