Background: The nursing professional self-efficacy scale (NPSES) is one of the most used self-reporting tools for assessing nursing self-efficacy. Its psychometric structure was described differently in several national contexts. This study aimed to develop and validate version 2 of the NPSES (NPSES2), which is a brief version of the original scale selecting items that contribute to stably detecting attributes of care delivery and professionalism as descriptors of salient aspects of the nursing profession. Methods: Three different and subsequent cross-sectional data collections were employed to reduce the number of items to generate the NPSES2 and validate its new emerging dimensionality. The first (June 2019–January 2020) involved 550 nurses and was used to reduce the number of the original scale items by using a Mokken scale analysis (MSA) to ensure the selection of items consistently with the invariant item ordering properties. The subsequent data collection was performed to conduct an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) involving 309 nurses (September 2020–January 2021), and the last data collection (n = 249) was performed to cross-validate with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the most plausible dimensionality derived from the EFA (June 2021–February 2022). Results: The MSA led to the removal of twelve items and retention of seven items (Hs = 0.407, standard error = 0.023), which showed adequate reliability (rho reliability = 0.817). The EFA showed a two-factor solution as the most plausible structure (factors loading ranged from 0.673 to 0.903; explained variance = 38.2%), which was cross-validated by the CFA that showed adequate fit indices: χ² (13, N = 249) = 44.521, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.946; TLI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.069 (90% CI = 0.048–0.084); SRMR = 0.041. The factors were labeled as care delivery (four items) and professionalism (three items). Conclusions: NPSES2 is recommended to allow researchers and educators to assess nursing self-efficacy and inform interventions and policies.

This study focused on vaccine hesitancy and decision regret about the COVID-19 vaccine among nursing students (BScN and MScN) and Registered Nurses (RNs) in Italy. The primary aim was to describe decision regret and vaccine hesitancy among these groups and to understand what influences vaccine hesitancy. Data were collected through an e-survey conducted from March to June 2024. The Decision Regret Scale and the Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale were employed to assess regret and hesitancy levels, assessing trust, concerns, and compliance regarding vaccination. Among the participants, 8.64% were not vaccinated. The results indicated moderate to high levels of decision regret and diverse levels of trust, concerns, and compliance with COVID-19 vaccination. Structural equation modeling revealed that decision regret significantly predicted Trust (R² = 31.3%) and Concerns (R² = 26.9%), with lower regret associated with higher trust and lower concerns about vaccine safety. The number of COVID-19 vaccine boosters was a significant predictor of Trust and Concerns, with more boosters associated with higher trust and lower concerns. MScN students exhibited higher Compliance compared to RNs (R² = 2.9%), highlighting the role of advanced education. These findings suggest that addressing decision regret and providing comprehensive vaccine information could enhance trust and compliance.

Introduction Decision regret refers to feelings of remorse or dissatisfaction with a decision made regarding the treatment. Mapping the meaningful aspects of decision regret in patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is necessary to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and inform the development of effective interventions to address it. For this reason, this protocol aimed to describe the methodological aspects of a scoping review focused on mapping all the meaningful aspects of decision regret in patients with NCDs and provide a conceptual and comprehensive framework of the phenomenon. Methods and analysis The study described in this protocol will be performed following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. The anticipated starting time is July/August 2023 and the anticipated end of the review is June 2024. This scoping review will include quantitative, qualitative, primary and secondary literature, as well as grey literature on decision regret in patients with NCDs. The systematic search will be performed by consulting PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. English-language articles from any context will be eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will take part in an iterative process of evaluating literature, choosing papers and extracting data. Disagreements among reviewers will be solved through consensus meetings. Results will be presented in relation to the review question by employing tables, figures and narrative summaries. Ethics and dissemination This scoping review did not require ethical approval since it involves a literature review and does not include new data collection from human participants. The results of the review will provide a summary of the available literature on decision regret experienced by patients with NCDs, which is crucial for developing preventive educational interventions in situations where multiple therapeutic options are available.

Uvod: Žaljenje zbog odluke ključni je ishod usmjeren na pacijenta, posebno relevantan za osobe s neprenosivim bolestima koje se suočavaju s više terapijskih mogućnosti s jednakim koristima. Cilj je ove studije bio razviti integrirani konceptualni okvir za razjašnjenje odrednica i putova koji vode do žaljenja zbog odluke i podršku donošenju odluka usmjerenih na pacijenta. Metode: Ova je studija razvila integrirani konceptualni okvir kombinirajući nedavni pretražni pregled s bibliometrijskim i leksikometrijskim analizama. Naslovi, sažeci i ključne riječi iz 28 studija s cjelovitim tekstom uključeni u pretražni pregled izdvojeni su i sastavljeni u RIS datoteku. Preliminarna leksikometrijska analiza kvantificirala je leksičku raznolikost, dok je analiza zajedničke pojave ključnih riječi provedena pomoću VOSviewera za identifikaciju glavnih tematskih skupina. Nalazi su zatim integrirani s tematskom sintezom kako bi se razvio sveobuhvatan konceptualni okvir. Rezultati: Leksikometrijska je analiza otkrila visok stupanj leksičke raznolikosti, što je naznačeno omjerima Type-Token (0,7158) i Hapax Token (0,5736), što sugerira tematsko bogatstvo unutar izvornih podataka. Bibliometrijsko mapiranje identificiralo je sedam različitih konceptualnih klastera: psihološke i emocionalne odrednice, procese odlučivanja i strategije uključivanja pacijenata, ishode i kvalitetu života koje prijavljuju pacijenti, pokretače stavova i motivacije, kontekste usmjerene na obitelj i razvoj, demografske karakteristike te analitičke i kontekstualno specifične čimbenike. Ovi klasteri, sintetizirani s tematskim nalazima, oblikovali su strukturirani konceptualni okvir koji ilustrira odnose između prediktora, medijatora i ishoda, a sve to modulirano je sveobuhvatnom kulturnom sferom. Zaključci: Rezultirajući okvir nudi sveobuhvatan i primjenjiv model za razumijevanje i potencijalno predviđanje žaljenja zbog odluka kod pacijenata s neprenosivim bolestima. Integracijom psiholoških, demografskih, kliničkih i kontekstualnih čimbenika postavlja temelje za razvoj prilagođenih intervencija za podršku odlučivanju usmjerenih na smanjenje žaljenja i poboljšanje skrbi usmjerene na pacijenta. Buduća empirijska validacija i primjena ovog okvira mogu informirati personalizirane strategije za jačanje zajedničkog donošenja odluka i poboljšanje ishoda liječenja pacijenata.

Introduction: Decision regret is a critical patient-centered outcome, particularly relevant for individuals with non-communicable diseases who face multiple therapeutic options with equivalent benefits. This study aimed to develop an integrated conceptual framework to clarify the determinants and pathways leading to decision regret and support patient-centered decision-making. Methods: This study developed an integrated conceptual framework by combining a recent scoping review with bibliometric and lexicometric analyses. Titles, abstracts, and keywords from 28 full-text studies included in the scoping review were extracted and compiled into a RIS file. A preliminary lexicometric analysis quantified lexical diversity, while a keyword co-occurrence analysis was performed using VOSviewer to identify major thematic clusters. The findings were then integrated with a thematic synthesis to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework. Results: The lexicometric analysis revealed a high degree of lexical diversity, as indicated by the Type-Token Ratio (0.7158) and Hapax Token Ratio (0.5736), suggesting thematic richness within the source data. Bibliometric mapping identified seven distinct conceptual clusters: psychological and emotional determinants, decision processes and patient involvement strategies, patient-reported outcomes and quality of life, attitudinal and motivational drivers, family-centered and developmental contexts, demographic characteristics, and analytical and context-specific factors. These clusters, synthesized with thematic findings, informed a structured conceptual framework that illustrates the relationships among predictors, mediators, and outcomes, all of which are modulated by an overarching cultural sphere. Conclusions: The resulting framework offers a comprehensive and actionable model for understanding and potentially predicting decision regret among patients with non-communicable diseases. By integrating psychological, demographic, clinical, and contextual factors, it lays the foundation for developing tailored decision support interventions aimed at reducing regret and enhancing patient-centered care. Future empirical validation and application of this framework can inform personalized strategies to strengthen shared decision-making and improve patient outcomes.