Heling Wen, Rui Zhang, Zhenke Zhou, Min Hong, Zheng Huang, Yifeng Jiang, Yu Chen, Lei Peng
{"title":"在对护理专业学生进行血液传播职业暴露教育时,比较讲授式学习法和演示-吸收-讨论法,随机试验。","authors":"Heling Wen, Rui Zhang, Zhenke Zhou, Min Hong, Zheng Huang, Yifeng Jiang, Yu Chen, Lei Peng","doi":"10.1186/s12912-024-02365-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Occupational Bloodborne Exposures (OBEs) are incidents where healthcare workers come into contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, leading to risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens. Nursing students, often in direct contact with patients, face heightened risks due to their duties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, we conducted a cross-sectional survey using a OBEs questionnaire to explore the knowledge, attitudes, practices, and needs regarding OBEs among nursing students. Subsequently, we used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the impact of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion (PAD) method with the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) method on OBEs education for nursing students. Pre-test, post-test, and retention test were used to observe the teaching effectiveness, and the students' feedback on the teaching method was also observed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the cross-sectional survey, we found that nursing students lacked sufficient knowledge and management skills regarding OBEs but recognized the importance of standard precautions and expressed a desire for systematic OBEs training during their education and internships. In the RCT, the total, theoretical, and practical scores of the PAD and LBL groups were comparable in the pre-test (56.70 ± 3.47 vs. 56.40 ± 3.95, 33.09 ± 3.39 vs. 33.33 ± 2.44, 23.61 ± 4.66 vs. 23.07 ± 4.84, p > 0.05). After training, the PAD model demonstrated an advantage over the LBL model in immediate total (84.25 ± 4.06 vs. 78.95 ± 4.23, p < 0.001), theoretical (54.32 ± 2.43 vs. 51.44 ± 2.58, p < 0.001), and practical scores (29.93 ± 3.90 vs. 27.51 ± 4.33, p < 0.01). It also showed superior retention of total (69.05 ± 3.87 vs. 65.77 ± 2.94, p < 0.001) and theoretical scores (39.05 ± 3.05 vs. 36.23 ± 3.18, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the retention of practical scores between the two groups (30.00 ± 4.76 vs. 29.53 ± 3.73, p > 0.05). The PAD group benefited more across various learning dimensions but reported a higher study load.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study reveals that the PAD model could be a valuable approach for teaching OBEs to nursing students.</p>","PeriodicalId":48580,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11441161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of lecture-based learning with presentation-assimilation-discussion method in occupational bloodborne exposure education of nursing students, a randomised trial.\",\"authors\":\"Heling Wen, Rui Zhang, Zhenke Zhou, Min Hong, Zheng Huang, Yifeng Jiang, Yu Chen, Lei Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12912-024-02365-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Occupational Bloodborne Exposures (OBEs) are incidents where healthcare workers come into contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, leading to risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens. Nursing students, often in direct contact with patients, face heightened risks due to their duties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, we conducted a cross-sectional survey using a OBEs questionnaire to explore the knowledge, attitudes, practices, and needs regarding OBEs among nursing students. Subsequently, we used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the impact of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion (PAD) method with the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) method on OBEs education for nursing students. Pre-test, post-test, and retention test were used to observe the teaching effectiveness, and the students' feedback on the teaching method was also observed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the cross-sectional survey, we found that nursing students lacked sufficient knowledge and management skills regarding OBEs but recognized the importance of standard precautions and expressed a desire for systematic OBEs training during their education and internships. In the RCT, the total, theoretical, and practical scores of the PAD and LBL groups were comparable in the pre-test (56.70 ± 3.47 vs. 56.40 ± 3.95, 33.09 ± 3.39 vs. 33.33 ± 2.44, 23.61 ± 4.66 vs. 23.07 ± 4.84, p > 0.05). After training, the PAD model demonstrated an advantage over the LBL model in immediate total (84.25 ± 4.06 vs. 78.95 ± 4.23, p < 0.001), theoretical (54.32 ± 2.43 vs. 51.44 ± 2.58, p < 0.001), and practical scores (29.93 ± 3.90 vs. 27.51 ± 4.33, p < 0.01). It also showed superior retention of total (69.05 ± 3.87 vs. 65.77 ± 2.94, p < 0.001) and theoretical scores (39.05 ± 3.05 vs. 36.23 ± 3.18, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the retention of practical scores between the two groups (30.00 ± 4.76 vs. 29.53 ± 3.73, p > 0.05). The PAD group benefited more across various learning dimensions but reported a higher study load.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study reveals that the PAD model could be a valuable approach for teaching OBEs to nursing students.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11441161/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02365-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02365-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:职业性血源性暴露(OBE)是指医护人员接触血液或其他潜在传染性物质,从而导致传播血源性病原体风险的事件。护理专业学生经常与病人直接接触,因其职责而面临更大的风险:首先,我们使用 OBEs 问卷进行了横断面调查,以了解护理专业学生对 OBEs 的认识、态度、实践和需求。随后,我们采用随机对照试验(RCT)的方法,比较了 "演示-吸收-讨论"(PAD)法与传统的 "讲授式学习"(LBL)法对护生 OBEs 教育的影响。通过前测、后测和保留率测试观察教学效果,并观察学生对教学方法的反馈:在横断面调查中,我们发现护生缺乏足够的 OBEs 知识和管理技能,但认识到标准预防措施的重要性,并表示希望在教育和实习期间接受系统的 OBEs 培训。在 RCT 中,PAD 组和 LBL 组在前测中的总分、理论和实践得分相当(56.70±3.47 vs. 56.40±3.95,33.09±3.39 vs. 33.33±2.44,23.61±4.66 vs. 23.07±4.84,P>0.05)。训练结束后,PAD 模型的即时总分(84.25 ± 4.06 vs. 78.95 ± 4.23,P 0.05)优于 LBL 模型。PAD 组在不同的学习维度上获益更多,但学习负担也更重:结论:我们的研究表明,PAD 模式是向护理专业学生传授 OBE 的一种有价值的方法。
Comparison of lecture-based learning with presentation-assimilation-discussion method in occupational bloodborne exposure education of nursing students, a randomised trial.
Background: Occupational Bloodborne Exposures (OBEs) are incidents where healthcare workers come into contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, leading to risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens. Nursing students, often in direct contact with patients, face heightened risks due to their duties.
Methods: First, we conducted a cross-sectional survey using a OBEs questionnaire to explore the knowledge, attitudes, practices, and needs regarding OBEs among nursing students. Subsequently, we used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the impact of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion (PAD) method with the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) method on OBEs education for nursing students. Pre-test, post-test, and retention test were used to observe the teaching effectiveness, and the students' feedback on the teaching method was also observed.
Results: In the cross-sectional survey, we found that nursing students lacked sufficient knowledge and management skills regarding OBEs but recognized the importance of standard precautions and expressed a desire for systematic OBEs training during their education and internships. In the RCT, the total, theoretical, and practical scores of the PAD and LBL groups were comparable in the pre-test (56.70 ± 3.47 vs. 56.40 ± 3.95, 33.09 ± 3.39 vs. 33.33 ± 2.44, 23.61 ± 4.66 vs. 23.07 ± 4.84, p > 0.05). After training, the PAD model demonstrated an advantage over the LBL model in immediate total (84.25 ± 4.06 vs. 78.95 ± 4.23, p < 0.001), theoretical (54.32 ± 2.43 vs. 51.44 ± 2.58, p < 0.001), and practical scores (29.93 ± 3.90 vs. 27.51 ± 4.33, p < 0.01). It also showed superior retention of total (69.05 ± 3.87 vs. 65.77 ± 2.94, p < 0.001) and theoretical scores (39.05 ± 3.05 vs. 36.23 ± 3.18, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the retention of practical scores between the two groups (30.00 ± 4.76 vs. 29.53 ± 3.73, p > 0.05). The PAD group benefited more across various learning dimensions but reported a higher study load.
Conclusions: Our study reveals that the PAD model could be a valuable approach for teaching OBEs to nursing students.
期刊介绍:
BMC Nursing is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of nursing research, training, education and practice.