ArticlePloS one2024
Expectations and concerns about transitioning to face-to-face learning among Korean nursing students: A mixed methods study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual Horizons in Medicine: The Role of the Metaverse in Transforming Medical Education-A Qualitative Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Determinants of nursing students' satisfaction with blended learning.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Using expert-modeling videos in telesimulations to teach pediatric and neonatal nursing.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Owing to the coronavirus disease pandemic, nursing education materials were developed for online use. However, as nursing involves working with human beings, the experience of face-to-face learning is important. This study investigated the learning satisfaction and anxiety experienced by nursing students based on their learning methods, expectations, and concerns about transitioning entirely to face-to-face learning. Using a mixed-methods design, 120 and 14 third- and fourth-year nursing students in Korea completed an online survey and individual interviews, respectively. Data were collected from July to August 2022 to assess nursing students' learning satisfaction, anxiety, expectations, and concerns based on their learning method. Learning satisfaction was 3.96±0.68 out of 5; the students who experienced "online lectures only" had significantly higher overall satisfaction (F = 3.22, p = .002), nursing lectures satisfaction (F = 2.01, p = .046), and nursing practicum satisfaction (F = 2.19, p = .031). Anxiety was measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 tool and was evaluated at the "minimal level," with an average score of 3.46 ± 4.80 out of 21. From the qualitative results obtained through interviews, we derived three categories and nine subcategories. These categories include: the burden of unfamiliar learning situations that are difficult to predict, considerations about face-to-face learning needed to improve learning satisfaction, and the turning point that offsets the sense of deprivation during college life. The qualitative results provided evidence for determining specific goals for face-to-face learning that reflected the opinions of nursing students. To successfully transition to face-to-face learning, it is essential to consider a combination of student efforts, professors' attention, and university-level support to develop a learning approach that combines the strengths of both online and face-to-face learning. Maximizing the benefits of online learning, such as integrating face-to-face and online learning through repetitive reviews of recorded videos of face-to-face sessions at their own time, can effectively reduce students' burdens and anxiety and increase their learning satisfaction.
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.