ArticleBMC medical education2026
Patient perspectives on practice guidance in nursing education: a scoping review.
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.
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
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
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.