ArticleBMC nursing2026
Nurse leaders' perspectives on a feasibility randomized controlled trial evaluating an online training program to improve evidence-based leadership: a qualitative descriptive study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05244499 (Online Training to Improve Evidence-based Leadership Competencies Among Nurse Leaders in China), which is not on this 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.
Online Training to Improve Evidence-based Leadership Competencies Among Nurse Leaders in China: Study Protocol for a Randomised Feasibility Trial (EVILEAD-CH)
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQualitative evaluation is crucial for leadership feasibility RCTs, as it deepens the interpretation of findings and informs definitive trial design. Yet, such evaluations are lacking. This study describes nurse leaders' perspectives on a feasibility RCT evaluating an online training program to improve evidence-based leadership.
methodsThis qualitative descriptive study followed a feasibility RCT. Using purposive sampling, we recruited nurse leaders from the intervention group. From August 15 to August 24, 2023, we conducted five focus group interviews with 25 participants. Data were analyzed using content analysis, focusing on four feasibility categories: (1) intervention content and delivery, (2) trial design, conduct, and processes, (3) outcomes, and (4) measures. The reporting of the study was guided by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.
resultsParticipants valued the training but found its complex content challenging to understand and apply in daily practice; this led to specific suggestions for refinement (Category 1). They emphasized the need for leadership training to be accessible to all nurses, recommending either entry requirements or multi-level training tailored to different competency levels (Category 2). For outcome evaluation, they proposed replacing "self-efficacy" with "evidence-based leadership efficacy" (Category 3), developing targeted assessment tools for evidence-based leadership, and incorporating qualitative methods to assess the intention to leave their professional role or workplace (Category 4).
conclusionThis study pioneers the qualitative evaluation of a feasibility RCT focused on leadership training, providing participant-informed insights across key feasibility domains. The findings yield valuable insights for enhancing the feasibility and effectiveness of future evidence-based leadership training programs utilizing RCT designs. Furthermore, they offer practical guidance for developing leadership interventions in comparable contexts.
trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05244499) on February 7, 2022. The protocol and feasibility RCT are published in peerreviewed journals.
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.