ArticleBMC medical education2026
Comparing between face-to-face and mobile learning for improving nurses' performance in premature infant positioning: a quasi-experimental study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProper positioning is widely recognized in neonatal care. Implementing evidence-based education to improve Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) nurses' competency in infant positioning performance is essential. Evidence-based educational strategies are critical to enhancing NICU nurses' competency in infant positioning.
objectivesTo compare the effect of face-to-face training versus mobile learning (m-learning) utilizing multimedia resources on the positioning of preterm infants among NICU nurses.
methodsThis quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study employed a nonequivalent control group design, with 90 convenience-selected nurses from the NICU assigned to one of three groups: control, face-to-face training, or mobile learning (m-learning). The intervention consisted of face-to-face training (30 min plus 10-15 min of bedside training over 2 weeks) and m-learning (interactive multimedia content via WhatsApp for 2 weeks). Data were collected using the Infant Positioning Assessment Tool (IPAT) at baseline (T1), one week (T2), and one month (T3) post-intervention.
resultsNurses' performance of infant positioning was in a "need to change" state in three groups preintervention (p > 0.05). Post-intervention, in T2, the control group remained in a "need to change" state (IPAT score = 4.71 ± 0.44), whereas both the face-to-face training group (IPAT score = 8.66 ± 0.55) and the m-learning group (IPAT score = 8.57 ± 0.40) were in an "acceptable" state. In T3, compared to T1, there was a significant difference in IPAT scores among the control, face-to-face training, and m-learning groups, respectively (IPAT scores = 4.66 ± 0.37, 6.63 ± 0.48, 7.88 ± 0.65, p < 0.001). Both intervention groups showed decline from T2, but the pattern differed markedly: all nurses in the face-to-face group (100%) returned to "need to change" status, while 40% of the m-learning group maintained acceptable performance. The m-learning group demonstrated significantly higher scores and better knowledge retention at one month follow-up compared to the face-to-face group.
conclusionFace-to-face and m-learning methods significantly improved nurses' ability to position premature infants, with m-learning showing better long-term knowledge retention. These findings confirm that each approach is effective on its own, while also suggesting that their unique strengths could be combined. Therefore, we recommend future research explore the effectiveness of blended learning strategies that combine the immediate feedback and practical experience of face-to-face training with the accessibility and reinforcement of m-learning.
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.