Introduction Concept analysis is widely used in nursing and health-related disciplines to clarify ambiguous constructs, refine disciplinary language and support theory development, instrument construction, education and practice. However, concept analysis is methodologically plural rather than a single uniform method. Different approaches vary in their assumptions, data sources, analytic steps and expected outputs. Aims This scoping review will identify methodological lineages of concept analysis and map reporting elements across nursing and health-related disciplines. It will examine both the cross-lineage applicability and the empirical distribution of candidate reporting elements. Methods The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and will be reported according to the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. Ten English- and Chinese-language databases will be searched from inception to the final search date, supplemented by targeted citation searching for foundational methodological sources. Two reviewers will independently screen records after calibration on a purposively enriched set of 25 records containing likely inclusions, likely exclusions and borderline records. Formal screening will begin after both overall raw agreement and positive agreement for the include/uncertain decision reach at least 75%; raw agreement and Cohen’s kappa will be reported before consensus. Data will be charted using a piloted form and synthesised descriptively through deductive-inductive framework analysis. Reporting elements will be mapped by both methodological applicability and empirical distribution. Conclusion The review will provide a structured account of concept analysis methods and reporting elements. It represents an evidence-mapping and candidate-item generation stage and will not itself produce a formal reporting guideline. The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xru7f .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: