Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41057851›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2025

Peer education versus traditional education on psychomotor skills and self-efficacy in nursing students: a single-blind randomized controlled trial.

Leyla Baran, Handan Özdemir

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Leyla BaranDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Mardin Artuklu University, Mardin, Turkey. leylabaran@artuklu.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7881-8556
Handan ÖzdemirDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1364-4900

Funding

Mardin Artuklu University MAÜ.BAP.23.SBF.006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer education (PE) refers to the process of individuals being educated by their peers, that is, people with similar experiences or statuses. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of PE on the psychomotor skills and self-efficacy of nursing students.

methodsThis single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted with 63 undergraduate nursing students. Data were collected using the "Individual Descriptive Information Form", "Intramuscular Injection Knowledge Level Assessment Form", "Intramuscular Injection Psychomotor Skills Assessment Form", and the "General Self-Efficacy Scale". Descriptive statistics (numbers, percentages, means, standard deviations, and min-max values) were used. The independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze differences between groups.

resultsThe mean age of the participants was 21.22 ± 0.85 years (range: 20 - 23), and 52.4% were female. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in pretest, posttest, or self-efficacy scores (p > 0.05). However, the psychomotor skill levels differed significantly between the groups (p < 0.001), with the intervention group scoring higher than the control group.

conclusionsNursing students who received PE demonstrated significantly better psychomotor skills than those taught using traditional methods. It is recommended to integrate interactive learning strategies such as PE, where students can express themselves more freely and actively engage in the learning process, especially in nursing education areas requiring the development of psychomotor skills.

Indexed as

Peer GroupPsychomotor PerformanceSelf EfficacyStudents, NursingClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Nursing, BaccalaureateFemaleHumansMaleSingle-Blind MethodYoung AdultNursing studentsPeer educationPsychomotor skillsRandomized controlled trialSelf-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID41057851
PMCPMC12505785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.