ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2025
Undergraduate Nursing Student Perceptions of Clinical Training Approaches: A Quasi-Experimental Study.
Article in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesUndergraduate nursing students report encountering significant challenges when they perform preplanning for clinical days. The literature lacks evidence regarding this educational model for clinical training, yet faculty continue to use it despite the lack of evidence that supports it. This study explored undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of their preclinical training activities.
methodsA quasi-experimental, after-only, nonequivalent control group design was employed at a public nursing school in an urban setting. A total of 110 undergraduate nursing students enrolled in an advanced medical-surgical course. Participants were divided into two groups based on their preparation approach for clinical practice. Data were collected using a paper-and-pencil survey at the end of the course's clinical rotation. The survey comprised three sections: (1) sociodemographic information, (2) the nursing clinical education tool (NCET) developed for this study, and (3) two open-ended questions focusing on the pros and cons of preplanning and reflective care approaches. The responses were analyzed and compared using a nonparametric two-independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsThe findings indicated that students in eight out of ten nursing clinical education survey categories favored the reflective care approach. No differences were found between groups concerning class grade point average (GPA), the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) passing rate, or standardized tests.
conclusionsThe reflective care approach was perceived more favorably than preplanning. Engaging in clinical reasoning strategies requires educators to reconsider how students interact with clinical education. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based methods to enhance the clinical learning experience and promote patient safety.
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.