ArticleBMJ open2025
Effectiveness and influencing factors of standardised training for nursing assistants: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Role Clarity Among Patient Care Technicians in Saudi Arabia: Outcomes of a Structured Educational Program.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Job satisfaction and organisational determinants among medical nursing assistants under hospital-based care reforms: a large cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Experiences of Iranian Nurses in Employing Nurse Assistants: A Descriptive Phenomenological Study.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the impact of standardised training on nursing assistants (NAs) and explore the factors influencing training effectiveness, specifically focusing on learning motivation and learning obstacles.
designA cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022.
settingThe study was conducted in Fujian Province, China.
participantsA total of 412 participants were included in this study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Training effectiveness, learning motivation, learning obstacles and learning engagement were the primary outcome measures.
methodsA survey was conducted on research NAs who were participating in standardised training in Fujian Province, China. The survey used general information questionnaires, educational participation scales, general suitability scales for participation barriers, blended learning participation scales and training effectiveness questionnaires.
resultsThe overall score of the training effectiveness questionnaires was 98.08±15.52, with an average score per item of 4.26±0.67. Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between the number of working years, self-rated health status, acceptance of NAs work and training effectiveness (p<0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that learning motivation, learning obstacles and learning engagement were independent factors influencing training effectiveness (F=171.073, p<0.001).
conclusionLearning motivation, learning obstacles and learning engagement all affect training effectiveness, which provides a clear direction for improving the effectiveness of training for NAs. In order to improve the training effectiveness of healthcare aides, it is necessary for clinical managers to focus on their learning motivation, learning obstacles and learning engagement.
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.