The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explaining the process of learning about dignity by undergraduate nursing students: A grounded theory study
Open accessAbstract
Background: The learning process about dignity and how undergraduate nursing students experience and use this ethical knowledge is an under-represented field in nursing research. To overcome the lack of conceptual clarity, it is important to understand what processes and dimensions students develop to support this learning outcome. Objective: This study aimed to explain the process of learning about dignity by undergraduate nursing students. Research design and methods: A qualitative study was conducted using the grounded theory method. Participants and research context: Data was collected through free reports and in-depth semi-structured interviews with 20 participants. A focus group was held for the selective coding. Sampling began purposefully and evolved into theoretical. Reflective and theoretical memos were generated from the data collection and constant comparison. Data analysis was performed using qualitative data analysis software using Corbin and Strauss’ method. Ethical considerations: The research was approved by a specialized research ethics committee from a Health School. Findings: The process of learning about dignity by undergraduate nursing students revealed ‘recognition of dignity’ as the core category, supported by five main categories: ‘proto-conscience of dignity’, ‘pathway to nursing’, ‘consciousness of dignity’, ‘ways of learning’, and ‘becoming capable’. These categories illustrate the processes and dimensions involved in nursing students’ concept translation of dignity learning, allowing a theory to emerge. Conclusions: The ‘Recognition of Dignity’ theory aims to contribute to developing educational, training, and supervision processes for nursing programs. It seeks to enhance the ethical and moral development of undergraduate nursing students by helping them understand the concept of dignity and its fundamental importance in nursing.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Existing research methodologies present several limitations: on one hand, mainstream studies primarily rely on qualitative interviews, often feature small sample sizes, and include few randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The generally small overall sample sizes limit the generalizability and statistical power of the conclusions [33–37].”
From Exploring the integration of AI and national quality courses in China: a study on teaching practices in nursing smart education (2025) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211
Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress
Pearson, B. D., & Meleis, A. I. (1985) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.2307/3425219 · Cited by 877
Nursing: The Philosophy and Science of Caring
Watson, J. (1979) · Nursing Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1097/00006216-197900340-00010 · Cited by 768
Nursing: the philosophy and science of caring
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-1522 · Cited by 306
A concept analysis of dignity for older adults
Jacelon, C. S., Connelly, T., Brown, R., Proulx, K., & Vo, T. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03170.x · Cited by 182
Preserving dignity in caring for older adults: a concept analysis
Anderberg, P., Lepp, M., Berglund, A., & Segesten, K. M. (2007) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04375.x · Cited by 151
An analysis of the concept dignity
Griffin-Heslin, V. L. (2005) · Accident and Emergency Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.aaen.2005.09.003 · Cited by 133
Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Mills, J., & Usher, K. (2013) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244013505757 · Cited by 113
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- International Council of Nurses. The ICN code of ethics for nurses. Geneva, Switzerland: International Council of Nurses, 2021.
- American Nurses Association. Code of ethics with interpretative statements. Washington, DC: Silver Spring, 2015.
- VERBI Software. MAXQDA. Berlin: Verbi Software, 2022.
- Birks M, Mills J. Grounded theory: a practical guide. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd, 2015, p. 198.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jing, Z., & Mouhong, Z. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-08289-y · Cited by 4
“The generally small overall sample sizes limit the generalizability and statistical power of the conclusions [33–37].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Franco, H., Caldeira, S., & Nunes, L.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Politécnica de Setúbal (PT)
- Universidade Católica Portuguesa (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Franco, Hugo
- Venue
- Nursing Ethics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-07-24
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 498-513
- ISSN
- 0969-7330 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0989
- PMC
- PMC11800701
- OpenAlex
- W4400945360
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 2.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nursing Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Patient Dignity and Privacy
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- human dignity, nursing ethics education, undergraduate nursing students, nursing education
- MeSH terms
- Respect, Adult, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Students, Nursing, Focus Groups, Personhood, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Grounded Theory
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