Undergraduate Nursing Student Perceptions of Clinical Training Approaches: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

IF 2.4 Q1 NURSING Nursing Reports Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.3390/nursrep15020047
Kholoud Hardan-Khalil, Ahlam Jadalla, Cathleen M Deckers, Christine B Costa
{"title":"Undergraduate Nursing Student Perceptions of Clinical Training Approaches: A Quasi-Experimental Study.","authors":"Kholoud Hardan-Khalil, Ahlam Jadalla, Cathleen M Deckers, Christine B Costa","doi":"10.3390/nursrep15020047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Undergraduate nursing students report encountering significant challenges when they perform preplanning for clinical days. The literature lacks evidence regarding this educational model for clinical training, yet faculty continue to use it despite the lack of evidence that supports it. This study explored undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of their preclinical training activities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental, after-only, nonequivalent control group design was employed at a public nursing school in an urban setting. A total of 110 undergraduate nursing students enrolled in an advanced medical-surgical course. Participants were divided into two groups based on their preparation approach for clinical practice. Data were collected using a paper-and-pencil survey at the end of the course's clinical rotation. The survey comprised three sections: (1) sociodemographic information, (2) the nursing clinical education tool (NCET) developed for this study, and (3) two open-ended questions focusing on the pros and cons of preplanning and reflective care approaches. The responses were analyzed and compared using a nonparametric two-independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings indicated that students in eight out of ten nursing clinical education survey categories favored the reflective care approach. No differences were found between groups concerning class grade point average (GPA), the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) passing rate, or standardized tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reflective care approach was perceived more favorably than preplanning. Engaging in clinical reasoning strategies requires educators to reconsider how students interact with clinical education. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based methods to enhance the clinical learning experience and promote patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11858538/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15020047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: Undergraduate nursing students report encountering significant challenges when they perform preplanning for clinical days. The literature lacks evidence regarding this educational model for clinical training, yet faculty continue to use it despite the lack of evidence that supports it. This study explored undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of their preclinical training activities.

Methods: A quasi-experimental, after-only, nonequivalent control group design was employed at a public nursing school in an urban setting. A total of 110 undergraduate nursing students enrolled in an advanced medical-surgical course. Participants were divided into two groups based on their preparation approach for clinical practice. Data were collected using a paper-and-pencil survey at the end of the course's clinical rotation. The survey comprised three sections: (1) sociodemographic information, (2) the nursing clinical education tool (NCET) developed for this study, and (3) two open-ended questions focusing on the pros and cons of preplanning and reflective care approaches. The responses were analyzed and compared using a nonparametric two-independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: The findings indicated that students in eight out of ten nursing clinical education survey categories favored the reflective care approach. No differences were found between groups concerning class grade point average (GPA), the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) passing rate, or standardized tests.

Conclusions: The reflective care approach was perceived more favorably than preplanning. Engaging in clinical reasoning strategies requires educators to reconsider how students interact with clinical education. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based methods to enhance the clinical learning experience and promote patient safety.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge Assessment of Hospital Nursing Staff in Saudi Arabia Regarding Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study. The Benefits of Caring Massage® for Patients and Nurses: A Delphi Study. Bridging the Gap: A Phenomenological Study of Transfer Students' Journey into Professional Nursing. A Scoping Review Protocol: Parenting Experiences and Family Dynamics in Pediatric Burn Care Settings from Hospitalization to the Return Home. Vocation of Human Care and Soft Skills in Nursing and Physiotherapy Students: A Cross-Sectional 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