ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
The application of the BOPPPS model in the ward rounds of nurses' standardized training in Southwest China: a mixed methods study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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.
- Application of the BOPPPS-CBL model in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians: a randomized comparison.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- BOPPPS model with virtual simulation system for otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery nursing interns: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Defect-based scenario simulation teaching in the specialized skills training of nurse anesthetists: a before-after within-subject design.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- BOPPPS-based teaching combined with narrative pedagogy and curriculum ideology and politics in clinical nursing in gastrointestinal surgery: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of learning by teaching in nursing skills education on the learner's knowledge and skill levels: a quasi-experimental study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Teaching ward rounds are the main teaching method used to develop clinical skills in standardized nursing training. However, the existing methods lack of cultivation of comprehensive ability and humanistic care for nurses, cannot meet the requirements of standardized training for nurses. BOPPPS (bridge-in, objective, pre-assessment, participatory Learning, post-assessment, and summary) is a student-centered teaching model that has been proven to enhance classroom teaching effectiveness. Therefore, the BOPPPS model was applied and its effectiveness in standardized nursing training was evaluated. Methods: In total, 260 nursing students were randomly allocated to two groups: the experimental group used the BOPPPS model and the control group used the traditional teaching model. This study used a mixed quantitative and qualitative research method to evaluate the effectiveness of the BOPPPS model. Results: The quantitative results were as follows: no significant difference in baseline scores was observed between the two groups before training. After training, the theory and practical scores in the experimental group were significantly higher than that of the control group. Similarly, students in the experimental group presented higher comprehensive ability scores than their counterparts. The students in the experimental group also exhibited higher satisfaction compared to the control group, while there was no difference in teacher satisfaction scores between the two groups ( Conclusion: Compared to traditional teaching methods, the BOPPPS model was more effective in standardized nursing training. We recommend applying the BOPPPS model to nursing training.
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.