ArticleNursing open2022
Clinical placements as a challenging opportunity in midwifery education: A qualitative study.
Article in Nursing open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and satisfaction with the quality of clinical training placements among nursing and midwifery students in Northern Ghana.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Exploring care quality in midwifery clinical practice settings in Ghana - a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends in Clinical Learning Environment for Nursing and Midwifery Education.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Context Matters: Factors Affecting Implementation of Simulation Training in Nursing and Midwifery Schools in North America, Africa and Asia.Clinical simulation in nursing · 2023Article
- Clinical placements as a challenging opportunity in midwifery education: A qualitative study.Nursing open · 2022Article
- Clinical learning opportunity in public academic hospitals: A concept analysis.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2022Article
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
aimThe aim of this qualitative study was to explore some of the existing statuses of clinical education and examine the strengths and weaknesses of the clinical faculty programme.
designA qualitative study.
methodsThis qualitative study was designed through the directed content analysis approach, which was completed according to the Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model. The purposeful sampling method of maximum variation was employed to select 33 participants, and the data were collected through in-depth individual interviews and focus group discussion.
resultsAfter the interview transcripts were analysed, the participants' opinions of the clinical faculty programme and the relevant challenges, dimensions and factors were classified into four categories and sixteen subcategories. The categories were compiled in the CIPP evaluation model, including context, input, process and product. Based on the content analysis results, appropriate planning was recommended for teaching effective clinical skills to students.
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.