Effect of an online training intervention on evidence-based practice in clinical nurses. #Evidencer Project.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING BMC Nursing Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s12912-024-02489-5
Antonio Jesús Ramos-Morcillo, Maria Ruzafa-Martínez, César Leal-Costa, Serafin Fernández-Salazar
{"title":"Effect of an online training intervention on evidence-based practice in clinical nurses. #Evidencer Project.","authors":"Antonio Jesús Ramos-Morcillo, Maria Ruzafa-Martínez, César Leal-Costa, Serafin Fernández-Salazar","doi":"10.1186/s12912-024-02489-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Online learning is becoming increasingly essential for health professionals, and it is necessary to understand how this modality affects clinical nurses' learning of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). For this reason, the present study sought to assess the effectiveness of an online training program in improving nurses' EBP competence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design was conducted with a control group and without randomization for a period of 6 months. The intervention was an online self-learning course based on Melnyk's seven steps of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). The course was structured into sequential modules requiring 72 h of work, with task completions and tests necessary for progression. Participants had three months to complete the course. EBP competence was measured with the EBP-COQ Prof© questionnaire. Data analysis included percentages, means, standard deviations, chi-square tests, student's t-tests, and a two-way repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis of the changes observed in each dimension and the overall EBP competence between the intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG) showed a significant group*time interaction in three of the four dimensions of the questionnaire. The results indicated that the online Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) course significantly improved knowledge, skills, and utilization three months after its completion. In the IG, the mean score was 44.04 (standard deviation (SD) = 7), compared to 37.83 (SD = 8.5) in the CG (p < 0.001). Regarding skills, the IG had a mean score of 24.24 (SD = 3.8), while the CG scored 23.01 (SD = 3.1) (p = 0.008). For utilization, the mean score in the IG was 36.77 (SD = 6.8), and the CG was 33.12 (SD = 6.3) (p = 0.005). Overall competence also showed a statistically significant difference, with the IG achieving a mean score of 141.22 (SD = 20.0) compared to the CG with a mean score of 130.34 (SD = 16.7) (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Training through an online education platform for three months (72 h) is an effective tool for improving the competence in Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of clinical nurses. A significant increase was observed in knowledge and moderate improvements in skills and the application of EBP. These online courses, adapted to the needs of professionals, can be an efficient way to prepare nurses and improve their application of EBP in a clinical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48580,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nursing","volume":"23 1","pages":"838"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02489-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Online learning is becoming increasingly essential for health professionals, and it is necessary to understand how this modality affects clinical nurses' learning of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). For this reason, the present study sought to assess the effectiveness of an online training program in improving nurses' EBP competence.

Methods: A quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design was conducted with a control group and without randomization for a period of 6 months. The intervention was an online self-learning course based on Melnyk's seven steps of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). The course was structured into sequential modules requiring 72 h of work, with task completions and tests necessary for progression. Participants had three months to complete the course. EBP competence was measured with the EBP-COQ Prof© questionnaire. Data analysis included percentages, means, standard deviations, chi-square tests, student's t-tests, and a two-way repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

Results: The analysis of the changes observed in each dimension and the overall EBP competence between the intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG) showed a significant group*time interaction in three of the four dimensions of the questionnaire. The results indicated that the online Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) course significantly improved knowledge, skills, and utilization three months after its completion. In the IG, the mean score was 44.04 (standard deviation (SD) = 7), compared to 37.83 (SD = 8.5) in the CG (p < 0.001). Regarding skills, the IG had a mean score of 24.24 (SD = 3.8), while the CG scored 23.01 (SD = 3.1) (p = 0.008). For utilization, the mean score in the IG was 36.77 (SD = 6.8), and the CG was 33.12 (SD = 6.3) (p = 0.005). Overall competence also showed a statistically significant difference, with the IG achieving a mean score of 141.22 (SD = 20.0) compared to the CG with a mean score of 130.34 (SD = 16.7) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Training through an online education platform for three months (72 h) is an effective tool for improving the competence in Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of clinical nurses. A significant increase was observed in knowledge and moderate improvements in skills and the application of EBP. These online courses, adapted to the needs of professionals, can be an efficient way to prepare nurses and improve their application of EBP in a clinical setting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线培训干预对临床护士循证实践的影响。#Evidencer项目。
背景:在线学习对卫生专业人员越来越重要,因此有必要了解这种学习方式如何影响临床护士对循证实践(EBP)的学习。为此,本研究试图评估在线培训项目在提高护士 EBP 能力方面的效果:方法:在为期 6 个月的研究中,采用了前测-后测设计的准实验研究方法,并设置了一个对照组,不进行随机分组。干预措施是基于梅尔尼克循证实践(EBP)七步骤的在线自学课程。该课程分为几个连续的模块,需要 72 小时的学习时间,完成任务并通过测试才能继续学习。学员有三个月的时间完成课程。EBP 能力通过 EBP-COQ Prof© 问卷进行测量。数据分析包括百分比、平均值、标准差、卡方检验、学生 t 检验和双向重复测量协方差分析(ANCOVA):对干预组(IG)和对照组(CG)之间在每个维度和总体 EBP 能力方面观察到的变化进行的分析表明,在问卷的四个维度中,有三个维度存在显著的组别*时间交互作用。结果表明,在线循证实践(EBP)课程在完成三个月后极大地提高了知识、技能和利用率。IG 的平均得分为 44.04(标准差 = 7),而 CG 的平均得分为 37.83(标准差 = 8.5)(P 结论:IG 的平均得分为 44.04(标准差 = 7),而 CG 的平均得分为 37.83(标准差 = 8.5):通过在线教育平台进行为期三个月(72 小时)的培训是提高临床护士循证实践(EBP)能力的有效工具。培训结果表明,护士的知识水平有了明显提高,技能和 EBP 的应用也有了适度改善。这些适应专业人员需求的在线课程可以有效地帮助护士做好准备,提高他们在临床环境中应用 EBP 的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Nursing
BMC Nursing Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
317
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nursing is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of nursing research, training, education and practice.
期刊最新文献
Harnessing the power of social media: transforming nursing education for unmatched academic success. Factors influencing job performance of nurses in COVID-19 care: a study in Egypt. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Motivation Scale (s-CPRMS): a cross sectional study. Magnitude of workplace violence and its associated factors against nurses working in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. The heterogeneous depression trajectory and its predictors in coronary heart disease patients undergoing home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1