ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Effectiveness of Digital Flipped Learning Evidence-Based Practice on Nurses' Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice: A Quasi-Experimental Trial.
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 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.
- Article
- Article
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Two New CPR Training Methods in Korea: Medical Virtual Reality Simulation and Flipped Learning.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Skills in Evidence-Based Practice among Nurses: The EDITcare Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based care has become critical in raising the quality of medical facilities. The implementation of evidence-based practice helps medical practitioners make better clinical decisions. Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the innovative flipped teaching model could be as effective as the conventional teaching model in terms of knowledge, attitude, and practice and to confirm the continuous effect. Design: A quasi-experimental design using the flipped and conventional learning groups concurrently with repeat measurements was used. Setting: The setting was a 475-bed regional teaching hospital in Taiwan, from March to July 2020. Participants: The study included 114 licensed nurses who had worked longer than three months, with 57 participants each in two groups. Methods: The participants were assigned to two groups using a block randomization method. All participants completed questionnaires related to knowledge, attitude, and practice of EBP at four-time points: pre-test (T0) and immediately after intervention (T1), at month 1 (T2), and at month 3 (T3). Analysis of repeated generalized estimating equations was used. Results: The flipped and conventional learning groups had significant differences in knowledge, attitude, and practice at the T0 and T1 (p < 0.05). The flipped group was higher than the conventional group at T3 in the knowledge score (p = 0.001) and lower than the conventional group at T2 in the attitude score (p = 0.010). There were no significant differences between the two groups’ practice scores at different time points. There were no significantly different score changes for knowledge, attitude, and practice (p > 0.05). The interaction term only at T3 vs. T0 in the knowledge score was slightly different (p = 0.049) in primary outcome. Conclusion: The intervention methods of both groups were effective. Flipped learning is more flexible and has more time for discussion, which nurses favor. Under the policy promoted in the hospital, EBP combined with the nursing advancement system was standardized, and conventional learning also improved the learning effect.
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.