ArticleBMC nursing2026
Comparative effectiveness of case-based versus simulation-based communication training: evidence from a quasi-experimental study in oncology nursing education.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing evidence-based interventions to improve nurse-patient communication is essential for enhancing patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes in oncology. However, robust evidence guiding the selection of effective and feasible communication training models for oncology nurses remains limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two structured communication training approaches, including case-based training and simulation-based training, in oncology nursing education.
methodsA quasi-experimental non-randomized controlled trial with a pretest-posttest design was conducted among 258 oncology nurses and 650 cancer patients. Oncology nurses were assigned to one of three groups based on pre-existing clinical shift rotations rather than random allocation: no training (NTG, n = 84), case-based training (CTG, n = 88), or simulation-based training (STG, n = 86). Both intervention groups received structured communication training covering therapeutic communication, needs assessment, instruction delivery, referral practices, and outcome evaluation. The STG used video-based scenarios with standardized patients (20 h), whereas the CTG used written clinical cases (16 h). Outcomes were measured using the Nursing Care Satisfaction Questionnaire, the Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale, and the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy Scale for Nurses. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA with sensitivity analyses.
resultsFor patient satisfaction with nursing care, a significant time × group interaction was observed (F(2, 255) = 17.2, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.12). Both CTG and STG showed significant improvements from pre- to post-intervention (p < 0.001), whereas the NTG showed no significant change (p = 0.81). Similarly, nurses' communication skills demonstrated a significant interaction effect (F(2, 255) = 19.6, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.21), with significant improvements in both intervention groups compared with the control group (p < 0.001). For occupational coping self-efficacy, the interaction effect was also significant (F(2, 255) = 15.8, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.19), indicating increased self-efficacy in both intervention groups (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between CTG and STG at post-test for any outcomes.
conclusionThese findings indicate that case-based and simulation-based communication training may be effective in improving communication-related outcomes in oncology nursing, although conclusions regarding their relative effectiveness should be drawn with caution.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.