Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707365›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Comparing the effects of patient safety education using design thinking and case based learning on nursing students' competece and professional socialization: A quasi-experimental design.

Seongmi Moon, Soo Jung Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 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.

Seongmi MoonDepartment of Nursing, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, 93 Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan, 44610, South Korea.
Soo Jung ChangDepartment of Nursing, Gangneung-Wonju National University, 150 Namwon-ro, Heungeop-myeon, Wonju, 26403, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient safety issues should be constantly monitored and sensitively recognized. In nursing education, it is necessary to find effective teaching methods to increase students' competencies in patient safety. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a new method, design thinking (DT), and a traditional method, case-based learning (CBL), in patient safety education. Design: This study used a quasi-experimental, pre-post control group design. Settings: A 30-h training tutorial was developed for intervention groups, DT and CBL, while the control group received no treatment. Participants: In this study were junior nursing students receiving baccalaureate nursing education with experiences of at least 480-h clinical practice. A total of 53 students (21 in the DT group, 19 in the CBL group, and 13 in the control group) were recruited. Methods: Clinical reasoning competency, patient safety competency, and professional socialization were measured immediately after the end of the educational program using DT and CBL, 4 weeks later, and 8 weeks later. Effects of DT and CBL were analyzed using a generalized estimating equation. Results: Both DT and CBL were effective in clinical reasoning competency (χ Conclusions: DT was as effective as CBL in clinical reasoning competency and knowledge domain of patient safety competency. In the healthcare field, where improving the patient experience is becoming increasingly important, DT is worth applying as an educational method to train nursing students who can take a creative and human-centered problem-solving approach. It is expected that educational curricula utilizing DT will be developed not only in the field of patient safety but also in various patient care areas.

Indexed as

Clinical competenceNursing educationPatient safetyProblem-based learningProblem solvingSocialization

Identifiers

PMID38707365
PMCPMC11066304

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.