ArticleBMC nursing2025
Outcome evaluation of a clinical nurse specialist continuing education pilot program: an intervention study with three repeated measures.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
Abstract
backgroundNurses must stay current on various professional requirements and advancements to deliver safe and effective patient care. Continuing education is essential for maintaining nursing competency, promoting job satisfaction, and upholding high standards in healthcare. This study aims to assess the effects of a continuing education pilot program on nurses' perceived practice outcomes and the barriers they face. Additionally, we sought to explore the possible links between job satisfaction, clinical nurse specialist core skills, and perceived practice outcomes and barriers.
methodsThis is a pilot intervention study with three repeated measures. A web-based survey was administered to Finnish nurses in both an intervention group (n = 35) and a control group (n = 44) at three time points: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year later. A linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze the data.
resultsThe intervention had no statistically significant positive effect on nurses' perceived practice outcomes. Nurses' gender (p = 0005) and measurement point (p = 0.019) had a statistically significant association with organizational and interpersonal barriers, which decreased throughout the study process in the intervention group. Gender was also statistically associated (p = 0.031) with workflow-related barriers. The clinical nurse specialist-specific competency had a strong positive association with nursing practice outcomes, whereas job satisfaction had a positive association with the perceived nursing practice barriers.
conclusionThis pilot intervention study highlights the complexities of nursing practice amidst healthcare transitions and resource constraints. Addressing systemic issues and fostering a supportive work environment are essential for enhancing nursing practice and reducing barriers to it. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes, targeted populations, and additional research methods.
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.