Table 1 Study steps: (1) Rapid Review and (2) discussion of empirical evidence with experts in the field

1. Rapid Review

1.1 Needs assessment/analysis, topic selection, and topic refinement

A first preliminary literature search aimed at informing the following steps and familiarizing with the topic, was performed. Some studies regarding poor care as perceived by nursing students have emerged (e.g., [17, 18]) with an impetus in recent years regarding the Unfinished Nursing Care perceptions among nursing students. Moreover, several policy documents have solicited the involvement of students in detecting poor care, episodes of neglected care, or similar issues (e.g., [4]). Therefore, to narrow the scope, the research team decided to perform a Rapid Review to answer the following questions: What studies have been conducted to date in the field of Unfinished Nursing Care as perceived by nursing students? What are their key methodological aspects?

1.2 Protocol development

The study protocol (not registered in a database) was designed by the researchers to address two main steps: (1) first, a Rapid Review was performed by adopting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [22] for literature search and findings report; (2) second, from the empirical evidence retrieved, researchers were engaged in a scientific discussion.

1.3 Literature search

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines [22] were used. Three electronic databases were approached, namely Medline (through PubMed), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus up to May 2022. The following keywords were applied: “nursing students,” “missed nursing care,” “unfinished nursing care,” “rationing of nursing care,” and “prioritisation process.” “OR” and “AND” were used to combine all the keywords in each electronic database, and the search strings were changed as documented in Supplementary Table 2.

1.4 Screening and study selection

First, two researchers (AB, SC) performed the literature search. Then, one researcher (AP) worked independently to evaluate study eligibility based on keywords, title, and abstract screening of each study. In the second step, all eligible studies were retrieved in full text format, and then two researchers (AB, SC) independently read the full text of all articles and evaluated their inclusion. Furthermore, two researchers (SC, AB) also examined the grey literature (no items were found) and references of included studies were screened manually.  Any differences regarding eligibility were discussed with the remaining members of the team (see authors).

All primary studies that were written in English involving nursing students at all levels of education that investigated Unfinished Nursing Care in all its possible terms in any study type (qualitative, quantative, thesis, etc.), except for systematic reviews, reviews, and books, were included. The processes of study selection and inclusion are reported in Fig. 1 [22].

1.5 Data extraction

A data extraction grid that was developed and piloted with two of the included studies. Then, two researchers (AB, SC) extracted the following data from each included study: (1) author; year of publication; country; affiliation (e.g., university); (2) aims; study design; setting; year of data collection; (3) sample and participants, including response rates, and participants’ main characteristics; (4) data collection process; and (5) main findings. The researchers worked independently and then compared the extracted data. Differences, if any, were discussed with a third researcher (AP) until full agreement was reached.

1.6 Risk-of-bias prevention

To prevent bias, some strategies were applied: (1) a preliminarily literature search was conducted by two researcher (SC, AB); (2) three researchers were involved in the definition of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (SC, AB, AP); (3) three researchers were involved in the literature search, study selection process, and data extraction; (4) structured guidelines were used in the study process and reporting; (5) data extraction was completed with verification by all researchers;  and (6) a consensus was sought among the researchers to move on to the next process/stage.

1.7 Knowledge synthesis

A narrative summary of the methodological aspects and findings of the retrieved studies was performed. These were summarised (a) the country where the study was conducted; (b) the affiliation of the author(s) (e.g., University, Hospital); (c) the main aims of the study; (d) the underlying concept or the conceptual framework considered (e.g., missed nursing care, implicit rationing of nursing care); (e) the study design; (f) the sampling methods by also summarising the inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the participants profile, and participation rates; (g) the data collection procedures and the tools used; (h) the main aspects investigated (e.g., the meaning given by students to the phenomenon, themes and sub-themes); (i) the ethical approval and considerations reported in the study, and (l) the main findings.

1.8 Report production and dissemination

The findings were documented and a draft prepared with the key issues. Then, the draft document was sent to all researchers, and they were invited to read it, as an individual reflection; after two weeks, the suggestions were shared among the team and the step 2 began.

2. Discussion of empirical evidence with experts in the field

2.1 Discussion process

With the intent to summarise the key considerations required while involving students in Unfinished Care explorations, researchers were involved in multiple rounds where inductive (from the evidence emerged) and deductive (by developing specific predictions from general principles, [43] reasoning, was conducted: each limitation, potentiality, and recommendation were first labelled, then described in its contents and provided with an example. The process was conducted by starting with a draft and collecting feedbacks and incorporating them progressively. Disagreements were also discussed, and the refined document was approved by all researchers (see authors).