ArticleBMC nursing2026
Construction of an ideological and political education evaluation indicator system for Basic Nursing Courses from the perspective of the CIPP model.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo construct an evaluation indicator system for ideological and political education (IPE) in Basic Nursing Courses, thereby providing a basis for improving the teaching quality of IPE in these courses.
methodsBased on the CIPP (Context-Input-Process-Product) model framework, a preliminary draft of the evaluation indicator system for IPE in Basic Nursing Courses was developed through methods, such as literature review and group discussion. Using the Delphi expert consultation method, 21 experts were invited to provide supportive feedback and suggestions for revising the evaluation system over two rounds. The scores, coefficient values and consistency ratios for the first-, second- and third-level indicators were calculated, and the weights of the indicators at each level were determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
resultsThe expert response rate in the two rounds of the Delphi survey was 95% and 100%, respectively. Expert authority coefficients were 0.856 and 0.865, and judgment basis coefficients were 0.865 and 0.880, respectively. Kendall's W values were 0.218 and 0.276 (p < 0.001). The developed evaluation indicator system comprised 4 first-level indicators, 12 s-level indicators, and 55 third-level indicators.
conclusionGuided by the CIPP theoretical framework, this study tentatively established an evaluation indicator system for IPE in Basic Nursing Courses. The consensus among experts reached an acceptable level, and the system could serve as a theoretical framework and reference for subsequent assessments of teaching quality and empirical validation of IPE in Basic Nursing Courses. However, as the system is still in the preliminary stage, further validation of its reliability, validity and feasibility, as well as its application in real teaching scenarios, is required.
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.