Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Skinner's programmed instruction improves diabetes knowledge and skills of undergraduate nursing students: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether Skinner’s programmed instruction approach is more effective than traditional lecture-based teaching in improving diabetes-related knowledge, technical skills, self-efficacy, and patient satisfaction among undergraduate nursing students.
methodsThis randomised controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in China. A total of 80 nursing students were randomly assigned to either a control group (traditional teaching, n = 40) or an experimental group (programmed instruction, n = 40). The intervention lasted 4 weeks. Outcomes were assessed across four domains: diabetes knowledge, technical skills (insulin injection and blood glucose monitoring), self-efficacy, and patient satisfaction. Composite scoring was used to estimate effect size and clinical relevance.
resultsFollowing the intervention, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher scores than the control group in diabetes knowledge, insulin injection accuracy, and blood glucose monitoring skills (all P < 0.05). General Self-Efficacy Scale scores also improved significantly in the experimental group (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction ratings were significantly higher in the experimental group across service attitude, technical ability, and health education guidance (P < 0.05).
conclusionProgrammed instruction can effectively enhance nursing students’ diabetes knowledge, technical skills, and self-efficacy, while also improving patient satisfaction. This teaching model shows promise for broader application in clinical nursing 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.