Trial reportBMJ open2024
Online training to improve evidence-based leadership competencies among nurse leaders in China: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Online Training to Improve Evidence-based Leadership Competencies Among Nurse Leaders in China: Study Protocol for a Randomised Feasibility Trial (EVILEAD-CH)
Effectiveness of Online Training Course to Improve Evidence-based Leadership Practices: a Cluster Randomised Two-arm Controlled Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of an online evidence-based leadership training programme for nurse leaders and its potential effectiveness in improving nurse leaders' evidence-based leadership competencies.
designThis is a two-arm, parallel, feasibility randomised controlled trial.
methodsWe screened all 160 nurse leaders from two Chinese hospitals. Eligible participants who gave their informed consent were randomly assigned to either an evidence-based leadership training group or a conventional online training group at each site and received a 7-month intervention. Pre-test and post-test assessments gauged feasibility and potential effectiveness. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed for data analysis.
resultsOf the 160 screened participants, 119 (74%) were assigned to the intervention group (n=59, 50%) or active control group (n=60, 50%). In the intervention group, the number of participant logins in the modules ranged from 21 (36%) to 58 (98%), while in the control group, it ranged from 20 (33%) to 57 (95%). Participants in the intervention group (n=59) completed 42% of the 531 assigned tasks, while the control group (n=60) completed 41% of their 540 assigned tasks. Regarding course task adherence, participants in the intervention group returned 3.8 (SD=3.2) tasks (out of 9 tasks), while the control group returned 3.7 (SD=3.5) tasks (out of 9 tasks). A total of 22 (18%) out of 119 participants dropped out of the study, with 9 (15%) out of 59 from the intervention group and 13 (22%) out of 60 from the control group.
conclusionsWhile the intervention demonstrated a degree of feasibility, measures can still be taken to improve intervention acceptability, course adherence and course task adherence. A full and powered randomised controlled trial is needed to test the intervention's effectiveness and to ensure the feasibility of the study in clinical settings. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT05244499.
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.