1分钟指导与问题型临床教育对护生批判性思维的影响

IF 0.8 Q4 NURSING Nursing and Midwifery Studies Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.4103/nms.nms_12_18
A. Safa, M. Adib-Hajbaghery, Tayebeh Moradi
{"title":"1分钟指导与问题型临床教育对护生批判性思维的影响","authors":"A. Safa, M. Adib-Hajbaghery, Tayebeh Moradi","doi":"10.4103/nms.nms_12_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There are inconsistencies about the best clinical teaching method for strengthening nursing students’ critical thinking (CT). Objective: This study is aimed to compare the effects of the one-min preceptor (OMP) and problem-based learning (PBL) clinical education on nursing students’ CT. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. All forty 3rd-year nursing students who had taken the Medical-Surgical Nursing III clinical course were recruited to the study through the census method in 2016 in Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. The students were randomly allocated into three groups of 13 to pass their clinical course via the OMP, the PBL, or the conventional clinical education methods, respectively. In the first session and at the end of the last session, the students completed the California CT Skills Test Form B. The one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used to analyze the data. Results: Students’ mean age was 21.77 ± 1.32 years. There were no significant differences in baseline CT score among the conventional (11.17 ± 1.64), OMP (10.58 ± 1.34), and PBL (10.79 ± 1.18) groups (P = 0.894). However, at the end of the study, the difference among the groups regarding CT score was significant (12.17 ± 1.89, 13.69 ± 1.10, and 13.64 ± 1.44; P = 0.049). Conclusion: OMP and PBL can be potentially effective in improving students’ CT ability. Therefore, these methods can be used in clinical nursing education to improve students’ CT ability.","PeriodicalId":45398,"journal":{"name":"Nursing and Midwifery Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"243 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of the 1-min preceptor and problem-based clinical educations on nursing students’ critical thinking\",\"authors\":\"A. Safa, M. Adib-Hajbaghery, Tayebeh Moradi\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/nms.nms_12_18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: There are inconsistencies about the best clinical teaching method for strengthening nursing students’ critical thinking (CT). Objective: This study is aimed to compare the effects of the one-min preceptor (OMP) and problem-based learning (PBL) clinical education on nursing students’ CT. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. All forty 3rd-year nursing students who had taken the Medical-Surgical Nursing III clinical course were recruited to the study through the census method in 2016 in Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. The students were randomly allocated into three groups of 13 to pass their clinical course via the OMP, the PBL, or the conventional clinical education methods, respectively. In the first session and at the end of the last session, the students completed the California CT Skills Test Form B. The one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used to analyze the data. Results: Students’ mean age was 21.77 ± 1.32 years. There were no significant differences in baseline CT score among the conventional (11.17 ± 1.64), OMP (10.58 ± 1.34), and PBL (10.79 ± 1.18) groups (P = 0.894). However, at the end of the study, the difference among the groups regarding CT score was significant (12.17 ± 1.89, 13.69 ± 1.10, and 13.64 ± 1.44; P = 0.049). Conclusion: OMP and PBL can be potentially effective in improving students’ CT ability. Therefore, these methods can be used in clinical nursing education to improve students’ CT ability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing and Midwifery Studies\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"243 - 248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing and Midwifery Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/nms.nms_12_18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing and Midwifery Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/nms.nms_12_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:关于加强护生批判性思维(CT)的最佳临床教学方法存在不一致。目的:比较1分钟训导(OMP)与问题型学习(PBL)临床教育对护生CT成绩的影响。方法:采用随机对照试验。选取2016年在伊朗卡尚医科大学内科-外科护理III临床课程学习的43年级护理专业学生,采用人口普查方法进行研究。这些学生被随机分为三组,每组13人,分别通过OMP、PBL或传统的临床教育方法完成他们的临床课程。在第一节课和最后一节课结束时,学生们完成了加州CT技能测试表b。使用单向方差分析和Kruskal-Wallis和Mann-Whitney检验来分析数据。结果:学生平均年龄21.77±1.32岁。常规组(11.17±1.64)、OMP组(10.58±1.34)、PBL组(10.79±1.18)基线CT评分差异无统计学意义(P = 0.894)。但研究结束时,两组CT评分差异有统计学意义(12.17±1.89、13.69±1.10、13.64±1.44;P = 0.049)。结论:OMP和PBL在提高学生CT能力方面具有潜在的效果。因此,这些方法可用于临床护理教育,提高学生的CT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。
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
The effects of the 1-min preceptor and problem-based clinical educations on nursing students’ critical thinking
Background: There are inconsistencies about the best clinical teaching method for strengthening nursing students’ critical thinking (CT). Objective: This study is aimed to compare the effects of the one-min preceptor (OMP) and problem-based learning (PBL) clinical education on nursing students’ CT. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. All forty 3rd-year nursing students who had taken the Medical-Surgical Nursing III clinical course were recruited to the study through the census method in 2016 in Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. The students were randomly allocated into three groups of 13 to pass their clinical course via the OMP, the PBL, or the conventional clinical education methods, respectively. In the first session and at the end of the last session, the students completed the California CT Skills Test Form B. The one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used to analyze the data. Results: Students’ mean age was 21.77 ± 1.32 years. There were no significant differences in baseline CT score among the conventional (11.17 ± 1.64), OMP (10.58 ± 1.34), and PBL (10.79 ± 1.18) groups (P = 0.894). However, at the end of the study, the difference among the groups regarding CT score was significant (12.17 ± 1.89, 13.69 ± 1.10, and 13.64 ± 1.44; P = 0.049). Conclusion: OMP and PBL can be potentially effective in improving students’ CT ability. Therefore, these methods can be used in clinical nursing education to improve students’ CT ability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perceived stress and social support in pregnant women during the COVID-19 Pandemic Physical resilience and its related factors in Iranian older adults with ischemic heart disease: A cross-sectional study Psychological well-being and coping strategies of midwives during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: A qualitative study The Effects of Nigella sativa and curcumin supplementation on oxidative stress biomarkers in postmenopausal women with primary osteoporosis or osteopenia: A triple-blind factorial randomized controlled trial Effects of ambulation during the first stage of labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A randomized controlled trial
×
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