ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2020
Evaluation of in-person continuing education programs from the perspective of ward nurses.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome evaluation of a clinical nurse specialist continuing education pilot program: an intervention study with three repeated measures.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the clinical educational environment based on the DREEM model from the viewpoint of the OR students.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Analysis of the Demand for Continuing Education of Nurses in the Department of Infectious Diseases and Its Influencing Factors.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- The effect of bio ethical principles education on ethical attitude of prehospital paramedic personnel.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing how programs are implemented from the perspective of the learners themselves is one of the most effective ways to improve the quality of continuing education. The aim was to evaluate the implementation of in-person continuing education programs from the perspective of nurses. METHODOLOGY: Setting of the study was the selected hospital of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Al-zahra hospital). This study is a descriptive cross-sectional one. Using a researcher-made questionnaire, the implementation of continuing education programs in four areas of the aim, educational techniques, educational content, and educational field was evaluated. The sample consisted of 236 nurses working in these hospitals who participated in the study through convenience sampling. Data were analyzed by SPSS software version 19 using descriptive statistics.
resultsBased on the results, "the need for new content learning" was mentioned as the first priority in continuing education programs. The majority of participants scored each of the following domains (aim, educational techniques, educational content, and education field) as well as all items related to the continuing education program evaluation as "moderate."
conclusionMost nurses assessed the implementation of in-person continuing education programs implemented in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in general and in each of the domains as "moderate." Therefore, in order to improve the quality of programs, it is necessary to take steps to match the goals with the needs of learners, improve teaching techniques, improve the quality of program contents, and optimize the scope of the programs.
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.