ArticleBMC nursing2025
Undergraduate nursing students' self-efficacy in clinical teaching: a cross-sectional study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective clinical teaching by nurses supports the transfer of knowledge, skills and values amongst nursing students, nurses and health professionals, contributing to safe quality healthcare. Worldwide, professional nursing bodies include clinical teaching as a requirement for nursing registration. Despite this, graduating nursing students judge their clinical teaching capabilities to be less developed than other competencies. To enhance nursing students’ clinical teaching capabilities, research suggests they should first strengthen their self-efficacy related to clinical teaching; however, little, if anything, is known about the development of nursing students’ clinical teaching self-efficacy. This study aimed to examine the development of undergraduate nursing students’ self-efficacy in clinical teaching during their degree program.
methodsA cross-sectional survey design was used. Year 2 and final year (Year 3) nursing students in an Australian Bachelor of Nursing program completed the Modified Self-Efficacy in Clinical Teaching Scale. Multiple linear regression identified the predictors of clinical teaching self-efficacy and t-tests determined year-level differences. Item response frequencies and means were used to identify the clinical teaching tasks with which participants were most and least confident.
resultsFor the total sample (n = 319), participants’ year level of study (p = .002) and peer teaching experience (p < .001) were significant positive predictors of clinical teaching self-efficacy. Year 3 participants’ clinical teaching self-efficacy was higher than that of Year 2 participants (p < .001). Year 2 and 3 participants were most confident they could teach with prowess and least confident they could impact a learner’s development. More than half of Year 3 students rated their confidence with clinical teaching tasks as moderate or low and Year 2 participants were less confident across all clinical teaching tasks compared to Year 3 participants.
conclusionsThis study examined nursing students’ clinical teaching self-efficacy – an underreported topic. Results suggest that nursing students can develop their clinical teaching self-efficacy throughout their degree program. To enhance nursing students’ clinical teaching self-efficacy, university educators should consider integrating peer teaching experiences and best practice clinical teaching principles into curricula. This research supports future benchmarking of nursing students’ self-efficacy outcomes with those of other disciplines and degree 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.