The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a standardised definition for fundamental care: A modified Delphi study
Open accessAbstract
Aims and objectives: To generate a standardised definition for fundamental care and identify the discrete elements that constitute such care. Background: There is poor conceptual clarity surrounding fundamental care. The Fundamentals of Care Framework aims to overcome this problem by outlining three core dimensions underpinning such care. Implementing the Framework requires a standardised definition for fundamental care that reflects the Framework's conceptual understanding, as well as agreement on the elements that comprise such care (i.e., patient needs, such as nutrition, and nurse actions, such as empathy). This study sought to achieve this consensus. Design: Modified Delphi study. Methods: Three phases: (i) engaging stakeholders via an interactive workshop; (ii) using workshop findings to develop a preliminary definition for, and identify the discrete elements that constitute, fundamental care; and (iii) gaining consensus on the definition and elements via a two‐round Delphi approach (Round 1 n = 38; Round 2 n = 28). Results: Delphi participants perceived both the definition and elements generated from the workshop as comprehensive, but beyond the scope of fundamental care. Participants questioned whether the definition should focus on patient needs and nurse actions, or more broadly on how fundamental care should be delivered (e.g., through a trusting nurse–patient relationship), and the outcomes of this care delivery. There were also mixed opinions whether the definition should be nursing specific. Conclusions: This study has initiated crucial dialogue around how fundamental care is conceptualised and defined. Future work should focus on further refinements of the definition and elements with a larger, international group of practising nurses and service users. Relevance to clinical practice: The definition and elements, through ongoing refinement, will contribute to a robust evidence base that will underpin policy development and the systematic and effective teaching, delivery, measurement and evaluation of fundamental care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The qualitative content analysis process
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x · Cited by 22,617
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500 · cited 1×
“There is no single definition of consensus in the Delphi method (Jorm, 2015); however, previously, researchers have argued that 70% agreement is adequate (Hsu & Sandford, 2007).”
MethodThe Levels of Evidence and Their Role in Evidence-Based Medicine
Burns, P. B., Rohrich, R. J., & Chung, K. C. (2011) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e318219c171 · Cited by 2,155
The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care
Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L. (2011) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1239 · Cited by 1,956
Kitson, A., Marshall, A., Bassett, K., & Zeitz, K. (2013) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06064.x · Cited by 924
Self-citationUsing the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research
Jorm, A. F. (2015) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/0004867415600891 · Cited by 765 · cited 3×
“There is no single definition of consensus in the Delphi method (Jorm, 2015); however, previously, researchers have argued that 70% agreement is adequate (Hsu & Sandford, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodResultMissed Nursing Care: A Qualitative Study
Kalisch, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Nursing Care Quality · doi:10.1097/00001786-200610000-00006 · Cited by 641
Assessing unidimensionality: A comparison of Rasch Modeling, Parallel Analysis, and TETRAD
Yu, C. H., Popp, S. E. O., DiGangi, S. A., & Jannasch-Pennell, A. K. (2020) · doi:10.7275/q7g0-vt50 · Cited by 626
Eubank, B. H., Mohtadi, N. G., Lafave, M. R., Wiley, J. P., Bois, A. J., Boorman, R. S., & Sheps, D. M. (2016) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0165-8 · Cited by 423
McCormack, L. A., Treiman, K., Rupert, D., Williams-Piehota, P., Nadler, E., Arora, N. K., Lawrence, W., & Street, R. L. (2011) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.020 · Cited by 364
Cited by
Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review
Shang, Z. (2023) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000032829 · Cited by 657
Metadata
- Authors
- Feo, R., Conroy, T., Jangland, E., Muntlin Athlin, Å., Brovall, M., Parr, J., Blomberg, K., & Kitson, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-02-12
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 11-12
- Pages
- 2285-2299
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W2776178911
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 30.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a standardised definition for fundamental care: A modified Delphi study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jocn.14247
- The paper
- Feo, R., Conroy, T., Jangland, E., Muntlin Athlin, Å., Brovall, M., Parr, J., Blomberg, K., & Kitson, A. (2018). Towards a standardised definition for fundamental care: A modified Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14247
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.