ArticleBMJ open2026
How nurses contribute to medical treatment decision-making with physicians: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo map existing literature on nurses' contributions to medical decision-making in hospital care, the factors influencing their involvement and how both nurses and physicians perceive this contribution.
designA scoping review was conducted following Arksey & O'Malley's framework and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)-Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (ScR) checklist DATA SOURCES: A broad literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. The initial search was performed in October-November 2023 and updated in December 2025, with no time or language restrictions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Empirical studies were screened by two independent researchers and included if they reported on nurses' involvement in or attempts to contribute to decision-making regarding medical treatments for adult patients in the hospital. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were charted using a predefined extraction form. Extracted data were coded, grouped and examined inductively to identify recurring patterns, which were discussed and refined by the two reviewers.
resultsA total of 111 studies were included, encompassing a wide range of study designs and clinical settings. Studies have reported that nurses often contribute to decision-making in subtle ways during ward rounds, multidisciplinary meetings and informal interactions, drawing on their observations and advocating for patients' interests. Nurses reported moderate involvement, while physicians acknowledged nurses' expertise but did not consistently recognise their input. We developed a model that illustrates how the interplay between personal, organisational and cultural factors determines whether nurses' clinically relevant observations are acknowledged and integrated into medical treatment decisions.
conclusionNurses contribute to medical treatment decision-making in various but often subtle, ways. Unfortunately, their contributions are not consistently recognised within decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.