ArticleScientific reports2026
A cross-sectional comparison of nursing knowledge attitudes and practices in adverse event management based on simulation training experience.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Barriers and facilitators of the implementation of a leadership training program based on the Developing and Sustaining Nursing Leadership Best Practice Guideline: A qualitative study.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
- Perceived stress and structural empowerment profiles among clinical nurses: a latent profile analysis in occupational health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- When behavior outweighs infrastructure: disinfectant and latex exposure and preventive practice among operating room nurses in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective nurse management of Adverse Nursing Events (ANEs) is crucial for patient safety. This study aimed to investigate nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (self-reported clinical practice) regarding ANE management and compared KAP differences between nurses with and without clinical scenario simulation course (CSSC) training. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 931 nurses selected using convenience sampling from August 1st to August 15th 2024, across five hospitals in China. Data were collected using a self-designed KAP questionnaire. A total of 931 valid responses were collected. The knowledge, attitude, and practice scores were 7 (6, 8), 46 (40, 50), and 50 (42, 50), respectively. In unadjusted comparisons, nurses with CSSC training had higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores than those without training (all P < 0.001). Knowledge positively correlated with attitude (r = 0.628, P < 0.001), and practice (r = 0.671, P < 0.001). Attitude correlated with practice (r = 0.876, P < 0.001). Nurses demonstrating adequate knowledge, positive attitudes, and practices towards the management of ANE, those who received CSSC training scored significantly higher across all domains. Therefore, CSSC may be considered as a component of in-service patient-safety education; however, the observed differences should be interpreted as associations and require confirmation in longitudinal or experimental studies.
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.