In-Person and Video-Based Education: Do They Affect Pressure Injury Knowledge in Nursing?

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY Advances in Skin & Wound Care Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1097/ASW.0000000000000240
Demet İnangil, Nilüfer Ertürk, Elif Lale Pakdil, İlayda Türkoğlu, Özgül Torun, Ayşe Kabuk
{"title":"In-Person and Video-Based Education: Do They Affect Pressure Injury Knowledge in Nursing?","authors":"Demet İnangil, Nilüfer Ertürk, Elif Lale Pakdil, İlayda Türkoğlu, Özgül Torun, Ayşe Kabuk","doi":"10.1097/ASW.0000000000000240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine how training on the nursing care of pressure injuries (PIs) affects knowledge levels and satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was semiexperimental, conducted in the form of a pretest and posttest in one group of 105 nurses working in a training and research hospital. The training took place in person and via video. All nurses included in the study group first received in-person training in 15-person groups followed by weekly video training for 4 consecutive weeks. Before training, investigators assessed the nurses' PI knowledge using the Nurses' Knowledge Level Assessment for PI Care (NKLAPIC; pretest). After the in-person module (posttest 1) and video-based module (posttest 2), investigators provided the NKLAPIC again. The independent-sample test, one-way analysis of variance, repeated-test-measures analysis of variance, Bonferroni test, and pairwise comparisons were used in data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean NKLAPIC scores were 47.71 ± 13.5 (out of 100 points) at pretraining, 68.5 ± 12.32 after the in-person training, and peaked at 72.38 ± 4.74 after video-based training (P < .001). Video-based training appeared to lead to a larger increase in knowledge levels than in-person training alone (P < .001). Further, although the average satisfaction score given to the in-person training was 3.97 ± 0.93, the same score for the online training was 4.12 ± 0.95 (P > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Outcomes suggest that in-person training and video-based training regarding PI care improve the knowledge levels of nurses.</p>","PeriodicalId":7489,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Skin & Wound Care","volume":"37 11&12","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Skin & Wound Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ASW.0000000000000240","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine how training on the nursing care of pressure injuries (PIs) affects knowledge levels and satisfaction.

Methods: This study was semiexperimental, conducted in the form of a pretest and posttest in one group of 105 nurses working in a training and research hospital. The training took place in person and via video. All nurses included in the study group first received in-person training in 15-person groups followed by weekly video training for 4 consecutive weeks. Before training, investigators assessed the nurses' PI knowledge using the Nurses' Knowledge Level Assessment for PI Care (NKLAPIC; pretest). After the in-person module (posttest 1) and video-based module (posttest 2), investigators provided the NKLAPIC again. The independent-sample test, one-way analysis of variance, repeated-test-measures analysis of variance, Bonferroni test, and pairwise comparisons were used in data analysis.

Results: Mean NKLAPIC scores were 47.71 ± 13.5 (out of 100 points) at pretraining, 68.5 ± 12.32 after the in-person training, and peaked at 72.38 ± 4.74 after video-based training (P < .001). Video-based training appeared to lead to a larger increase in knowledge levels than in-person training alone (P < .001). Further, although the average satisfaction score given to the in-person training was 3.97 ± 0.93, the same score for the online training was 4.12 ± 0.95 (P > .05).

Conclusions: Outcomes suggest that in-person training and video-based training regarding PI care improve the knowledge levels of nurses.

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
面对面教育和视频教育:会影响护理中的压力损伤知识吗?
目的:探讨压伤护理培训对患者知识水平和满意度的影响。方法:本研究采用半实验方法,对某培训研究型医院105名护士进行前测和后测。培训是通过现场和视频进行的。研究组所有护士首先接受15人一组的现场培训,然后每周进行连续4周的视频培训。培训前,采用护士PI护理知识水平评估(NKLAPIC)对护士PI知识进行评估;预备考试)。在面对面模块(后测1)和基于视频的模块(后测2)之后,研究者再次提供NKLAPIC。资料分析采用独立样本检验、单因素方差分析、重复检验测量方差分析、Bonferroni检验和两两比较。结果:训练前NKLAPIC平均分为47.71±13.5分(满分100分),现场训练后为68.5±12.32分,视频训练后最高为72.38±4.74分(P < 0.001)。基于视频的培训似乎比单独的面对面培训更能提高知识水平(P < 0.001)。此外,尽管现场培训的平均满意度得分为3.97±0.93,但在线培训的平均满意度得分为4.12±0.95 (P < 0.05)。结论:结果表明,PI护理现场培训和视频培训提高了护士的知识水平。
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
Advances in Skin & Wound Care
Advances in Skin & Wound Care DERMATOLOGY-NURSING
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
271
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal, Advances in Skin & Wound Care is highly regarded for its unique balance of cutting-edge original research and practical clinical management articles on wounds and other problems of skin integrity. Each issue features CME/CE for physicians and nurses, the first journal in the field to regularly offer continuing education for both disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Oncology/Hematology Nurses' Proficiency in Assessing Lower-Extremity Skin and Edema in Patients with Cancer: An Observational Study. Impact of Cleaning and Disinfecting on Full-Body Support Surfaces. Markers for Pressure Injury Risk in Individuals with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Study. Pyoderma Gangrenosum Improved with Dapsone and Prednisone: A Case Report. Risk Prediction Model of Peristomal Skin Complications Among Patients with Colorectal Cancer and an Ostomy: A Cross-sectional Study in Shanghai, China.
×
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