Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35455775›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Nursing Student Satisfaction with the Teaching Methodology Followed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Marta Carolina Ruiz-Grao, Sandra Cebada-Sánchez, Carmen Ortega-Martínez, Antonia Alfaro-Espín, Eduardo Candel-Parra, Francisco García-Alcaraz, Milagros Molina-Alarcón, Victoria Delicado-Useros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Exploration of Literature-Based Discussion Teaching in Biology and Cell Biology Laboratory Courses.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marta Carolina Ruiz-GraoNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1165-3448
Sandra Cebada-SánchezNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9547-9277
Carmen Ortega-MartínezNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.
Antonia Alfaro-EspínNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.
Eduardo Candel-ParraNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.
Francisco García-AlcarazNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.
Milagros Molina-AlarcónNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9279-2698
Victoria Delicado-UserosNursing Faculty, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6479-4389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Halfway through the 2019−2020 academic year, the entire university system was affected by an exceptional situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Online learning was globally implemented for all degrees to finish the course and to meet academic objectives. This unforeseen change in teaching and subsequent evaluations meant teachers and students had to invest significant effort. Student satisfaction is used to measure the evaluation of teaching/learning processes in higher education. Our objective was to know and compare the satisfaction of nursing students taught at a Spanish public university after making changes to the teaching methodology. Methods: A descriptive observational study that measures student satisfaction. Study population: 240 students registered in academic years 2019−2020 and 2020−2021 answered the survey. The survey contained 30 items answered on a Likert-type scale. The main variables: the learning methodology (online or blended) was the independent variable; student satisfaction was the dependent variable. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed. Results: A response rate between 37.4% and 41.2%. Overall satisfaction was 2.75 points (SD 0.56) and 2.94 points (SD 0.49) with online learning and bimodal learning, respectively (maximum score 4 points) (p < 0.004). Conclusions: Student satisfaction was moderate−high for both learning methodologies. Students found that the b-learning methodology was the most valued.

Indexed as

education onlinehigher educationnursing education researchnursing studentsstudent satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID35455775
PMCPMC9032741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.