ArticleNursing open2026
Design and Psychometric Evaluation of a Nursing Care Rationing Instrument.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe present study aimed to design and validate an instrument for measuring nursing care rationing based on the limitations of existing instruments.
designThis study employed an instrument design and psychometric evaluation methodology.
methodsIn the initial item generation phase, an exploratory qualitative study using conventional content analysis was conducted through individual semi-structured interviews with 15 clinical nurses to extract rationing dimensions and formulate an initial item pool alongside literature reviews. Following face and content validity assessments, the psychometric properties of the instrument were evaluated among 220 clinical nurses recruited from educational hospitals. Construct validity and dimensionality were examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) and Mokken Scale Analysis (MSA). Stability was further assessed via a Monte Carlo simulation (1000 replications), and reliability was evaluated using internal consistency indices and test-retest reliability (n = 30).
resultsThe final instrument comprises 12 items accounting for 71.97% of the total variance in exploratory factor analysis. A single-factor dimensionality was supported by EGA (with 100% item stability across 500 bootstrap iterations) and Mokken Scale Analysis (overall scalability coefficient NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
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.