SynthesisNursing open2024
Diabetes Education Program for Nursing Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 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.
- Enhancing comprehensive clinical competence in nursing students through intensive diabetes management training: A mixed-methods study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Effects of a standardized nursing care program on patient outcomes and nursing competence in diabetic patients at a primary hospital.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding hyperuricemia among physicians in internal medicine departments: a multicenter cross-sectional survey in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe purpose of this study was to summarise the current state of the science on diabetes mellitus education programs for nursing students.
designA systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsEligible studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies, published in English between 2013 and 2022, that examined diabetes education programs for nursing students were considered in the review. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. Key information such as authors, study focus, population, sample size, details of intervention and control group treatments, outcome variables, and main findings were extracted and summarised in a data extraction form for further analyses and syntheses.
resultsThe literature search identified 464 articles, from which 13 studies were evaluated in the systematic review. Most studies (n = 12, 92.3%) used technology-based teaching methods, such as high-fidelity simulations, mobile applications, and virtual reality simulations. Regarding the evaluation of diabetes education program effectiveness, the majority of studies showed significant improvements in knowledge (n = 8, 61.5%), followed by satisfaction with learning (n = 4, 30.8%), nursing skill performance (n = 3, 23.1%), and self-confidence (n = 3, 23.1%) in nursing students. In meta-analyses, technology-based teaching interventions, compared to traditional education, showed no statistically significant improvement in diabetes knowledge (standard mean difference 9.52, 95% CI [-0.18, 19.21], p = 0.05) and self-efficacy (standard mean difference 24.09, 95% CI [-10.75, 58.92], p = 0.18). Despite this, technology-based methods demonstrated favourable effects on knowledge and self-efficacy against traditional education. Findings highlight the importance of emerging technology-based diabetes education programs tailored for nursing students, crucial for enhancing positive educational outcomes. No Patient or Public Contribution.
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.