ArticleElectronic physician2017
Oral versus written feedback delivery to nursing students in clinical education: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Electronic physician, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring learning through volunteerism at a student-run community dental clinic.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2026Article
- What does "Timely" Mean to Residents? Challenging Feedback Assumptions in Postgraduate Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2023Article
- Identification of Core Interprofessional Preceptor Competencies and Development of a Preceptor Self-Assessment Tool.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFeedback delivery is deemed as a key element during a students' clinical education. It keeps students on track to meet their goal and increase students' motivation and confidence.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the quality of feedback delivery in oral versus written feedback delivery to nursing students in clinical education.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2012 in the city of Bojnurd in Iran. Using purposive sampling, last semester's nursing students (n=44) had been randomly assigned to oral and written feedback delivery groups. Three Instructors received orientation and training on methods of feedback delivery before study initiation. Then, they gave necessary oral and written feedback to the students. Clinical settings of the study included coronary care, surgical, and neonatal units of hospitals. Data collection tools were quality of feedback delivery, students' satisfaction questionnaire and students' reactions checklist. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 11.5 with chi-square test and the t-test.
resultsMost of the students (52%, n=23) were male. There were no significant differences between the scores of quality of oral and written feedback delivery (p>0.05). The study did not show a difference of satisfaction level between the oral and written feedback groups. The relationship between students' reactions and feedback type at the confidence level of 90% was significant, so that students who received oral feedback showed more severe reactions as compared to the written feedback group.
conclusionAccording to the results, the type of feedback is not an important factor in clinical education quality and satisfaction level. They may achieve a better outcome by focusing on the other aspects of quality of feedback delivery rather than feedback type.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at the Iranian Registration Center for Clinical Trials with the Irct id: (IRCT: 201111128076N1).
fundingNorth Khorasan University of Medical Sciences (permission no. 89/p/209).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.