Observational studyBMC medical education2026
Programme-level redesign and student outcomes in specialist post-registration ophthalmic nursing education: a cohort study.
Observational study 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-registration specialist nursing programmes must balance academic standards with workforce responsiveness, but fragmentation often persists across learning outcomes, assessment structures, and workload distribution. Although theoretical models including constructive alignment, programmatic assessment, competency-based education, and cognitive load theory promote coordinated design, empirical evaluation of integrated programme-level reforms remains limited, particularly regarding structural change and its association with measurable educational outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study examined the association between a theory-informed programme-level structural redesign and student academic achievement in a United Kingdom (UK) post-registration specialist ophthalmic nursing programme. The study also introduces the Integrated Programme Reform Model (IPRM) as a framework for programme-level educational reform. Nine sequential cohorts of registered nurses were included (N = 106). Six cohorts completed the traditional programme structure (2018-2021; n = 73), and three cohorts completed the redesigned programme (2022-2023; n = 33). The redesign integrated strategies derived from alignment, programmatic assessment, competency-based progression, and workload redistribution. First-attempt summative assessment outcomes were compared using Welch's t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher's exact tests. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d.
resultsFollowing programme redesign, mean student achievement increased from 57.4% (SD 10.6) to 71.1% (SD 8.1), with a mean difference of 13.7% points (95% CI 10.0-17.4; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 1.39). The proportion of students achieving distinction (≥ 70%) rose from 15.1% to 60.6% (p < 0.001), while the proportion of scores below the standardised 50% pass threshold fell from 19.2% to 0% (p = 0.005). These findings indicate a distribution-wide upward shift in achievement across the full performance spectrum, alongside reduced variability following redesign.
conclusionsCoordinated programme-level structural redesign was associated with sustained higher first-attempt academic achievement across successive cohorts. Causality cannot be inferred: the redesign coincided with a transition to master's-level provision and a change in assessment modality, the evaluation was conducted within a single programme by an author professionally involved in the redesign, and the data are historical. The IPRM is offered as a conceptual design heuristic for organising programme-level reform and requires prospective, independent, multi-site evaluation before any claim of effectiveness or transferability can be made.
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.