Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41857542›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2026

Patient perspectives on practice guidance in nursing education: a scoping review.

Andrea Glodek, Bettina Dauer, Bernd Reuschenbach

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Andrea GlodekDept. of Health and Nursing, Catholic University of Applied Science, Preysingstr. 95, Munich, D-81667, Germany. andrea.glodek@ksh-m.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5340-1527
Bettina DauerFederal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB), Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 114-116, Bonn, D-53113, Germany.
Bernd ReuschenbachDept. of Health and Nursing, Catholic University of Applied Science, Preysingstr. 95, Munich, D-81667, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9503-7230

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPractical training in health care involves caring for patients in hospitals, long-term care facilities, and outpatient settings. This scoping review examines patients’ perspectives on their involvement in clinical teaching and explores how evidence from medical education can guide nursing education when research is lacking.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and LIVIVO was conducted. Studies published in German and English that addressed clinical practice education in nursing and medicine were eligible.A total of 1,984 articles were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 45 met the established criteria. Because no nursing-specific studies were identified during the initial search, the review was expanded to include medical education literature. This decision was based on the parallels between nursing and medical training, particularly regarding clinical competencies and patient-centred care.

resultsThe 45 extracted records provided findings on five topics: (1) Motivations for participation: Patients reported both altruistic motives (contributing to education) and personal benefits (increased attention and educational value). Acceptance rates ranged from 78–100% in most studies. (2) Barriers to participation: Privacy concerns dominated, particularly for intimate examinations, with strong gender-concordance preferences. Concerns about competence and cultural/religious factors also influenced willingness. (3) Patient experiences: Experiences were generally positive; however, physical discomfort, inadequate supervision, and boredom were reported. (4) Information and consent: Many patients lacked awareness of teaching contexts, role hierarchies, and their right to refuse participation, with some reporting feelings of coercion. (5) Organizational factors: Small group sizes, appropriate timing, and clear role communication enhanced patient experiences.

conclusionsNo nursing-specific evidence is available on patient perspectives on clinical teaching. While medical education findings suggest that patients generally accept student involvement when privacy, communication, and consent are respected, the direct applicability to nursing contexts—particularly in outpatient, long-term care, and home settings—remains unvalidated. Nursing-specific research examining patient perspectives across diverse care settings is urgently needed to develop ethical, evidence-based guidelines for clinical education.

Indexed as

Education, NursingPatient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicClinical CompetenceHumansPatient-Centered CareClinical teachingEducationNursingNursing educationNursing practicePatient-centered carePatient involvementPatient participationPatient rightsPatient satisfactionTeaching rounds

Identifiers

PMID41857542
PMCPMC13064228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.