Effectiveness of Team Member Teaching Design on diabetes-related knowledge of practice nurses and the community covered by them

M. R. Mansoorian, S. Khosravan, Moosa Sajjadi, Mansoor Soltani, A. Khazaei
{"title":"Effectiveness of Team Member Teaching Design on diabetes-related knowledge of practice nurses and the community covered by them","authors":"M. R. Mansoorian, S. Khosravan, Moosa Sajjadi, Mansoor Soltani, A. Khazaei","doi":"10.32592/nkums.14.4.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The use of modern teaching methods to train practice nurses empowers them to play their roles. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Team Member Teaching Design (TMTD) and the routine teaching methods on the diabetes-related knowledge of the community covered by practice nurses.\nMethod: This quasi-experimental study was conducted on 24 practice nurses and 192 persons from the community covered by them. The samples were assigned into two groups of experiment and control via a simple randomization method. Diabetes care education was presented to the intervention and control groups using the TMTD and routine methods, respectively. The required data were collected through a researcher-made questionnaire related to diabetes and the TMTD model. The gathered data were analyzed in the SPSS-20 statistical package using the independent t-test, paired t-test, and repeated measures analysis of variance.\nResults: There was a significant difference between the mean scores of knowledge on TMTD between the practice nurses in the control and intervention groups after the intervention (P<0.001). The mean knowledge scores improved in the intervention group (12.08±1.44) compared to the controls (0.577±0.166) over time. Similarly, there were significant differences regarding the mean scores of diabetes-related knowledge in the community covered by the practice nurses in the experimental and control groups after the intervention (13.23±1.30 vs. 10.37±1.89) and at follow-up (12.42±1.49 vs. 9.96±1.72, respectively) (P<0.001).\nConclusion: The TMTD increased the learning of practice nurses and the community covered by them more than the routine teaching method.","PeriodicalId":16423,"journal":{"name":"journal of north khorasan university of medical sciences","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"journal of north khorasan university of medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32592/nkums.14.4.55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of modern teaching methods to train practice nurses empowers them to play their roles. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Team Member Teaching Design (TMTD) and the routine teaching methods on the diabetes-related knowledge of the community covered by practice nurses. Method: This quasi-experimental study was conducted on 24 practice nurses and 192 persons from the community covered by them. The samples were assigned into two groups of experiment and control via a simple randomization method. Diabetes care education was presented to the intervention and control groups using the TMTD and routine methods, respectively. The required data were collected through a researcher-made questionnaire related to diabetes and the TMTD model. The gathered data were analyzed in the SPSS-20 statistical package using the independent t-test, paired t-test, and repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: There was a significant difference between the mean scores of knowledge on TMTD between the practice nurses in the control and intervention groups after the intervention (P<0.001). The mean knowledge scores improved in the intervention group (12.08±1.44) compared to the controls (0.577±0.166) over time. Similarly, there were significant differences regarding the mean scores of diabetes-related knowledge in the community covered by the practice nurses in the experimental and control groups after the intervention (13.23±1.30 vs. 10.37±1.89) and at follow-up (12.42±1.49 vs. 9.96±1.72, respectively) (P<0.001). Conclusion: The TMTD increased the learning of practice nurses and the community covered by them more than the routine teaching method.
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
团队成员教学设计对实习护士及其所覆盖社区糖尿病相关知识的有效性
前言:运用现代教学方法培养实习护士,使其发挥应有的作用。本研究旨在比较团队成员教学设计(Team Member Teaching Design, TMTD)与常规教学方法对社区执业护士糖尿病相关知识的教学效果。方法:对24名执业护士及其所覆盖社区的192人进行准实验研究。采用简单随机法将样本分为实验组和对照组两组。对干预组和对照组分别采用TMTD和常规方法进行糖尿病护理教育。所需的数据是通过研究者制作的与糖尿病和TMTD模型相关的问卷来收集的。采用SPSS-20统计软件包对收集到的数据进行独立t检验、配对t检验和重复测量方差分析。结果:干预后,对照组实习护士与干预组实习护士对TMTD知识的平均得分差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。随着时间的推移,干预组的平均知识得分(12.08±1.44)高于对照组(0.577±0.166)。实验组与对照组执业护士对社区糖尿病相关知识的平均得分,干预后分别为13.23±1.30分和10.37±1.89分,随访时分别为12.42±1.49分和9.96±1.72分,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论:TMTD教学方法比常规教学方法更能提高实习护士及其所覆盖社区的学习水平。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Jigsaw and Traditional Teaching Methods on Learning and Motivation of Laboratory Science Students of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences in Parasitology Course in 2022 Effects of Citicoline and Atorvastatin Administration on the Regenerative Capacity of the Distal Segment of the Transected Sciatic Nerve in Conditions of Delayed Nerve Repair Effect of Two Types of Aerobic Exercise Programs on NT4 Gene Expression and Motor Performance in Spinally Injured Rats Effect of Hydroalcoholic Extract of Ginger on Cardiac Parameters in Male Rats with Renovascular Hypertension Comparison of the Frequency of Vaginal Infections in Women with Premature Delivery and Women with Term Delivery in Ali Ibn Abitaleb Hospital of Zahedan in 2018
×
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