A Study on the Changes in Nursing Values Reflected in the Nightingale Pledge
Purpose: This study examines the evolution of the wording and values of the Nightingale Pledge across different eras and contexts, clarifies its current relevance for nursing ethics and education, and analyzes changes in core principles-nonmaleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, dignity, justice, and social responsibility-in the United States, United Kingdom, and Korea. Methods: We conducted a scoping review-based narrative integrative review of primary Pledge texts (original versions, official revisions, and authorized translations) and secondary scholarship in English and Korean. We retrieved sources from PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, RISS, KISS, DBpia, and official repositories of professional associations and archives. The review covered the period from 1893 to March 31, 2025, with active retrieval from January 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. Predefined criteria guided both title/abstract and full-text screening. We used standardized extraction to record text structure, key clauses, adoption and revision contexts, educational and ceremonial uses, and principle-level mappings. We interpreted value diffusion qualitatively using a logistic-curve framework (formative → professionalization → transformation). Results: The review identified 108 records, reduced to 96 after deduplication, with 55 full-text assessments and 37 included studies. These comprised core primary sources including the 1893 original and a major 1935 revision, as well as comparative and ethical analyses. Language trends indicated a shift from obedience and character norms to explicit professional responsibility, confidentiality, patient rights, equity, accountability, and public trust. Although cross-national expressions varied, they converged on shared principles such as dignity, nonmaleficence, justice, and professionalism. In the current “transformation” phase, Pledge language interacts with codes, curricula, and institutional policy, and now extends to digital and AI ethics, including privacy, explainability, fairness, and responsibility. Conclusion: The Pledge serves not as a rigid rule but as a dynamic means of translating broad ethical principles into a practical, public commitment consistent with professional practice and education. A historically informed approach supports maintaining stable core principles while periodically updating language and teaching methods to reflect local contexts and new areas, such as AI-mediated care. This approach guides context-sensitive renewal of ethics education and organizational policy linked to the Pledge.