Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38569696›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Collaborative design of a health research training programme for nurses and midwives in Tshwane district, South Africa: a study protocol.

Rodwell Gundo, Mavis Fhumulani Mulaudzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Rodwell GundoDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa rodwell.gundo@up.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-8761-2055
Mavis Fhumulani MulaudziDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNurses are essential for implementing evidence-based practices to improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, nurses lack knowledge about research and do not always understand research terminology. This study aims to develop an in-service training programme for health research for nurses and midwives in the Tshwane district of South Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol outlines a codesign study guided by the five stages of design thinking proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. The participants will include nurses and midwives at two hospitals in the Tshwane district, Gauteng Province. The five stages will be implemented in three phases: Phase 1: Stage 1-empathise and Stage 2-define. Exploratory sequential mixed methods including focus group discussions with nurses and midwives (n=40), face-to-face interviews (n=6), and surveys (n=330), will be used in this phase. Phase 2: Stage 3-ideate and Stage 4-prototype. A team of research experts (n=5), nurses and midwives (n=20) will develop the training programme based on the identified learning needs. Phase 3: Stage 5-test. The programme will be delivered to clinical nurses and midwives (n=41). The training programme will be evaluated through pretraining and post-training surveys and face-to-face interviews (n=4) following training. SPSS V.29 will be used for quantitative analysis, and content analysis will be used to analyse qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria (reference number 123/2023). The protocol is also registered with the National Health Research Database in South Africa (reference number GP_202305_032). The study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Indexed as

MidwiferyFemaleFocus GroupsHospitalsHumansPregnancySouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesHospitalsNursesNursing CarePatient-Centered CarePatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID38569696
PMCPMC11146391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.