ArticleBMC medical education2023
Co-teaching in medicine and nursing in training nurse anesthetists: a before-and-after controlled study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defect-based scenario simulation teaching in the specialized skills training of nurse anesthetists: a before-after within-subject design.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Developing a competency framework for operating room nurse specialist training instructors: a Delphi study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Toward optimizing new nurse anaesthetist training: a qualitative study of perceptions, experiences, and systemic challenges.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Integrating Kolb's experiential learning theory into nursing education: a four-stage intervention with case analysis, mind maps, reflective journals, and peer simulations for advanced health assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A qualitative study of emergency management ability of anesthetist nurses.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClarifying the effectiveness of co-teaching in medicine and nursing (CMN) is important as it is crucial in clinical practice to improve the quality of patient care and prognosis. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of CMN in nurse anesthetist training.
methodThe study comprised a 6-month training session and a before-and-after controlled study. In total, 59 nurses were recruited. The first 30 nurses were enrolled in the conventional single-teaching in nursing (SN) group and only took nursing-related courses. The next 29 students were enrolled in the CMN group and received both general medical and nursing-specific curricula. Before and after training, medical and nursing collaboration competency scores and knowledge scores were compared between the two groups. At the end of the study, qualitative comments on teaching satisfaction and clinical reasoning skills improvement were queried, and content analysis was performed.
resultsParticipants in the CMN group outperformed those in the SN group in tests of medical and nursing collaboration abilities as well as knowledge. The CMN group outperformed the SN group in terms of teaching satisfaction evaluation, particularly in terms of fostering learning in the anesthetist specialty, improving clinical practice, fostering motivation, and influencing how people think about challenges at work. Furthermore, participants in the CMN group felt that their clinical reasoning abilities had improved.
conclusionIn comparison to the SN group, the CMN group had enhanced outcomes of patient care, medical and nursing collaboration, and clinical reasoning skills.
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.