ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Application of directly observed procedural skills in hospital infection training: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Integrating online learning with PBL and CBL: a promising approach to improve comprehensive learning outcomes in breast surgery for Chinese eight-year medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Application of CPBL combined with mind mapping in acute abdomen clinical training to improve post-training competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing peer teaching and psychological outcomes in medical education through structured formative assessment: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) method in enhancing hospital infection training. Methods: A total of 196 infection control staff from clinical departments were selected from a hospital and divided into a control group and an experimental group. The control group received conventional hospital infection control, which training included 10 h of theory lectures and 5 h of practical demonstrations, while the experimental group received three formative assessments using the DOPS method in addition to the conventional training at two-month intervals. The results of the three DOPS assessments in the experimental group were analyzed and compared. The training effectiveness was further evaluated by comparing theory test scores and satisfaction ratings between the two groups. Results: Among these 196 study subjects, the majority were over 35 years old, female, doctors or nurses, with middle titles, a bachelor's degree, and over 10 years of working seniority. The scores of using protective equipment and the handling of emergencies increased over the three DOPS evaluations (3.93 vs. 3.94 vs. 4.15 and 2.37 vs. 2.53 vs. 2.68, respectively). After adjusting for all covariates, the overall theoretical knowledge score in the experimental group was 7.968 times higher than that of the control group. The number of participants in the experimental group who were satisfied with the training was 86 compared to 71 in the control group for knowledge retention, 82 vs. 62 for clinical application, 83 vs. 67 for knowledge extrapolation, 88 vs. 73 for training methods, and 89 vs. 59 for motivation. Conclusion: Hospital infection control skills are important for clinical procedural skills. This study found that the application of the DOPS method in infection control training improved trainees' practical skills, knowledge retention, and ability to implement infection control measures effectively in clinical settings. These results highlight the value of DOPS as a targeted intervention to enhance infection control training outcomes, supporting its further promotion in clinical education programs.
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.