ArticlePloS one2018
Effectiveness of a learning support program for respiratory physical assessment: A quasi-experimental study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the need for physical assessment in home nursing care has been shown, little research has examined the development of visiting nurses' physical assessment capabilities.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a learning support program to help working visiting nurses utilize their respiratory physical assessment skills.
designThis study used a quasi-experimental design of two groups with pre-test, post-test measurements of training and follow-up test 8 weeks practice in their work place after the training.
methods57 currently working visiting nurses were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a control group in which nurses would not receive any special support after respiratory physical assessment training, and an experimental group in which nurses would receive support to utilize the knowledge and skills they had learned during the training.
resultsThe average practical examination score was significantly higher after the training. In the experimental group, the average score 8 weeks after training was not significantly higher than that obtained just after training. Further, after 8 weeks, the experimental group's average score was not significantly higher than that of the control group. Practice evaluation scores obtained by an investigation of daily clinical practice were not significantly higher seventh weeks compared to third weeks after training for either the experimental or control groups. Seventh weeks after training, the average practice evaluation score of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of control groups. The mean learning support program satisfaction score was higher among the experimental group than the control group.
conclusionsThe results suggested that support from others was effective in maintaining motivation for learning and making use in the regular practice of the knowledge and skills acquired in the respiratory physical assessment training.
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.