Diabetes Education Program for Nursing Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Nursing Open Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1002/nop2.70105
Jeong-Ah Ahn, Eun-Mi Kim, Jung Eun Lee, Kyoung-A Kim
{"title":"Diabetes Education Program for Nursing Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Jeong-Ah Ahn, Eun-Mi Kim, Jung Eun Lee, Kyoung-A Kim","doi":"10.1002/nop2.70105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this study was to summarise the current state of the science on diabetes mellitus education programs for nursing students.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies, published in English between 2013 and 2022, that examined diabetes education programs for nursing students were considered in the review. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. Key information such as authors, study focus, population, sample size, details of intervention and control group treatments, outcome variables, and main findings were extracted and summarised in a data extraction form for further analyses and syntheses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search identified 464 articles, from which 13 studies were evaluated in the systematic review. Most studies (n = 12, 92.3%) used technology-based teaching methods, such as high-fidelity simulations, mobile applications, and virtual reality simulations. Regarding the evaluation of diabetes education program effectiveness, the majority of studies showed significant improvements in knowledge (n = 8, 61.5%), followed by satisfaction with learning (n = 4, 30.8%), nursing skill performance (n = 3, 23.1%), and self-confidence (n = 3, 23.1%) in nursing students. In meta-analyses, technology-based teaching interventions, compared to traditional education, showed no statistically significant improvement in diabetes knowledge (standard mean difference 9.52, 95% CI [-0.18, 19.21], p = 0.05) and self-efficacy (standard mean difference 24.09, 95% CI [-10.75, 58.92], p = 0.18). Despite this, technology-based methods demonstrated favourable effects on knowledge and self-efficacy against traditional education. Findings highlight the importance of emerging technology-based diabetes education programs tailored for nursing students, crucial for enhancing positive educational outcomes. No Patient or Public Contribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":48570,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Open","volume":"11 12","pages":"e70105"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11605939/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.70105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to summarise the current state of the science on diabetes mellitus education programs for nursing students.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: Eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies, published in English between 2013 and 2022, that examined diabetes education programs for nursing students were considered in the review. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. Key information such as authors, study focus, population, sample size, details of intervention and control group treatments, outcome variables, and main findings were extracted and summarised in a data extraction form for further analyses and syntheses.

Results: The literature search identified 464 articles, from which 13 studies were evaluated in the systematic review. Most studies (n = 12, 92.3%) used technology-based teaching methods, such as high-fidelity simulations, mobile applications, and virtual reality simulations. Regarding the evaluation of diabetes education program effectiveness, the majority of studies showed significant improvements in knowledge (n = 8, 61.5%), followed by satisfaction with learning (n = 4, 30.8%), nursing skill performance (n = 3, 23.1%), and self-confidence (n = 3, 23.1%) in nursing students. In meta-analyses, technology-based teaching interventions, compared to traditional education, showed no statistically significant improvement in diabetes knowledge (standard mean difference 9.52, 95% CI [-0.18, 19.21], p = 0.05) and self-efficacy (standard mean difference 24.09, 95% CI [-10.75, 58.92], p = 0.18). Despite this, technology-based methods demonstrated favourable effects on knowledge and self-efficacy against traditional education. Findings highlight the importance of emerging technology-based diabetes education programs tailored for nursing students, crucial for enhancing positive educational outcomes. No Patient or Public Contribution.

护生糖尿病教育计划:系统回顾与元分析。
目的:总结护理专业学生糖尿病教育的科学现状。设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:通过检索PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL和Cochrane图书馆数据库来确定符合条件的研究。该综述考虑了2013年至2022年间以英文发表的随机对照试验和准实验研究,这些研究考察了护理专业学生的糖尿病教育计划。文章的质量是用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的关键评估清单来评估的。关键信息,如作者、研究重点、人群、样本量、干预和对照组治疗的细节、结果变量和主要发现被提取并总结在数据提取表格中,以供进一步分析和综合。结果:文献检索共纳入464篇文献,其中13篇纳入系统评价。大多数研究(n = 12, 92.3%)使用基于技术的教学方法,如高保真仿真、移动应用程序和虚拟现实仿真。在糖尿病教育项目效果评价方面,大多数研究显示护生在知识(n = 8, 61.5%)、学习满意度(n = 4, 30.8%)、护理技能表现(n = 3, 23.1%)和自信心(n = 3, 23.1%)方面均有显著改善。在meta分析中,与传统教育相比,以技术为基础的教学干预在糖尿病知识(标准均值差9.52,95% CI [-0.18, 19.21], p = 0.05)和自我效能(标准均值差24.09,95% CI [-10.75, 58.92], p = 0.18)方面没有统计学意义的改善。尽管如此,与传统教育相比,以技术为基础的方法在知识和自我效能方面表现出了良好的效果。研究结果强调了为护理专业学生量身定制的新兴技术糖尿病教育计划的重要性,这对提高积极的教育成果至关重要。没有病人或公众捐款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Open
Nursing Open Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
298
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Open is a peer reviewed open access journal that welcomes articles on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy. We aim to publish articles that contribute to the art and science of nursing and which have a positive impact on health either locally, nationally, regionally or globally
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信