ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Evaluating Humanisation in Intensive Care Nursing Practice: An Exploratory Study Using the HUMAS Scale.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHumanised care is central to nursing practice, yet sustaining relational and emotionally responsive care may be particularly challenging in intensive care environments characterised by technological complexity, clinical instability and repeated exposure to suffering. Humanisation should therefore be understood not as a single professional attribute, but as a multidimensional and context-dependent aspect of nursing practice.
aimTo explore humanisation-related dimensions among nurses working in an adult intensive care unit using the Healthcare Professional Humanisation Scale (HUMAS).
methodsAn exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted among 32 nurses working in an adult intensive care unit. Humanisation-related dimensions were assessed using the Healthcare Professional Humanisation Scale (HUMAS). Descriptive analyses were used to examine scores across the dimensions evaluated by the instrument.
resultsSociability showed the highest mean score (4.4), followed by self-efficacy (3.9), optimistic disposition (3.7), affection (3.6) and emotional understanding (2.9). These aggregated means describe a numerical pattern within this sample. In the absence of reported measures of variability or statistical comparisons, they cannot establish differences between dimensions or explain how nurses expressed these attributes in clinical practice.
conclusionThe findings provide an exploratory description of humanisation-related dimensions among intensive care nurses and suggest that humanisation in this setting should be considered as a multidimensional construct. Further research using larger samples and more comprehensive statistical analyses is needed to examine these dimensions and their expression in intensive care practice.
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.