Trial reportBMC medical ethics2025
Enhancing nursing ethics education: comparing the PAD model and traditional lecture-based learning.
Trial report in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the widespread occurrence of ethical dilemmas and moral distress in healthcare, it is crucial for educators to strengthen nursing students’ ethical education. However, there is little published research on the best practices for teaching nursing ethics. This study aims to determine whether the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion (PAD) mode, compared to traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching, increases nursing students’ moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making skills.
methodsA total of 100 eligible nursing students were randomized into two groups: the PAD model group (n = 50) and the LBL group (n = 50). Their moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making skills were evaluated using the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire-Revised Chinese Version (MSQ-R-CV) and the Chinese Version of Judgment About Nursing Decision (JAND-CV), both before and after the course, and again three months later.
resultsAfter the course, the PAD group showed significantly higher scores in moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making compared to the LBL group, both immediately and at the 3-month follow-up (p < 0.05). Specifically, the PAD group demonstrated greater improvements in total scores and in most subdimensions, including moral responsibility, moral burden, ethical choice, and ethical action. While both groups showed some degree of improvement after the intervention, the changes were more substantial and longer-lasting in the PAD group.
conclusionThis study confirms that the PAD model is an effective method for teaching nursing ethics and developing nursing students’ moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making skills. REGISTRATION: This randomized trial was registered in Chinese Clinical Registry Center, under code (ChiCTR2400086717) in 07/09/2024.
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.