| Literature DB >> 30832639 |
Jeong Sook Kim1, Mee Ock Gu2, HeeKyung Chang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) should be introduced early on in nursing education to develop students' independence and self-learning ability, there are few such courses for undergraduate nursing students in Korea. This study examined the effects of the EBP education program for undergraduate nursing students (EBP-EPUNS) on nursing students' knowledge, skills, attitudes, competencies, and future use of EBP.Entities:
Keywords: Critical thinking; Evidence-based practice; Nursing students; Simulation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30832639 PMCID: PMC6399807 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1501-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
EBP Education Program for Undergraduate Nursing Students (EBP-EPUNS) using multifaceted interventions
| Session | EBP steps | Content | Educational method | Time (minutes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction of EBP | Introduction of EBP | Lecture | 60 |
| Asking clinical question (1) | Lecture | 30 | ||
| Practice of asking clinical question | Group discussion | 90 | ||
| 2 | Clinical question (2) | Asking clinical question (2) | Lecture | 40 |
| Practice of asking clinical question with scenario module | Group discussion | 80 | ||
| 3 | Evidence search (1) | Database for evidence search | Lecture | 60 |
| Practice of evidence search on a computer | Computer lab | 60 | ||
| 4 | Evidence search (2) | Hierarchy of evidence | Lecture | 90 |
| Practice of evidence search with scenario module | Computer lab session | 90 | ||
| 5 | Critical appraisal (1) | Components of critical appraisal | Lecture | 90 |
| Practice of critical appraisal of RCTs with a scenario module | Group discussion | 90 | ||
| 6 | Critical appraisal (2) | Grading the strength of recommendations | Lecture | 30 |
| Practice of critical appraisal of RCT with a scenario module | Group discussion | 90 | ||
| 7 | Implementation and evaluation | Implementation of recommendations | Lecture | 60 |
| Practice of planning of implementation and evaluation with scenario module | Group discussion | 120 | ||
| 8 | Integrative application of 5-step EBP | Final practice of EBP 5-step application using a standardized patient | Group discussion | 120 |
Characteristics of participants and homogeneity tests between the experimental and control groups (N = 42)
| Variables | Characteristics | Experimental Group (n = 22) | Control Group ( | χ2 or t | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 22 (100.0) | 22 (100.0) | – | – |
| Age (yr) | ≤24 | 22 (100.0) | 20 (90.9) | – | 0.488 |
| ≥25 | 0 | 2 (9.1) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 22.82 ± 0.40 | 23.18 ± 0.85 | |||
| Religion | Yes | 7 (31.8) | 10 (45.5) | 0.86 | 0.353 |
| No | 15 (68.2) | 12 (54.5) | |||
| Satisfaction with nursing major | Very satisfied | 1 (4.5) | 1 (4.5) | 5.21a | 0.090 |
| Satisfied | 15 (68.2) | 8 (36.4) | |||
| Neutral | 6 (27.3) | 12 (54.5) | |||
| Dissatisfied | 0 | 1 (4.5) | |||
| Very dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | |||
| Satisfaction with clinical practice | Very satisfied | 0 | 1 (4.5) | 6.07a | 0.123 |
| Satisfied | 10 (45.5) | 4 (18.2) | |||
| Neutral | 11 (50.0) | 12 (54.5) | |||
| Dissatisfied | 1 (4.5) | 4 (18.2) | |||
| Very dissatisfied | 0 | 1 (4.5) | |||
| Importance of nursing research | Very important | 9 (40.9) | 12 (54.5) | 1.55a | 0.547 |
| Important | 12 (54.5) | 10 (45.5) | |||
| Neutral | 1 (4.5) | 0 | |||
| Not important | 0 | 0 | |||
| Not very important | 0 | 0 | |||
| Average academic performance | ≤4.0 | 2 (9.1) | 3 (13.6) | 1.48a | 0.835 |
| 3.5 ∼ 3.99 | 9 (40.9) | 7 (31.8) | |||
| 3.0 ∼ 3.49 | 11 (50.0) | 11 (50.0) | |||
| 2.5 ∼ 2.99 | 0 | 1 (4.5) | |||
| < 2.5 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Outcome variables (range of score) | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | t | ||
| EBP knowledge (1–5) | 3.26 ± 0.40 | 3.27 ± 0.46 | −0.12 | 0.907 | |
| EBP attitudes (1–5) | 3.67 ± 0.36 | 3.79 ± 0.32 | −1.15 | 0.256 | |
| EBP competencies (1–5) | 3.06 ± 0.48 | 3.04 ± 0.61 | 0.14 | 0.891 | |
| Future use of EBP (1–5) | 3.83 ± 0.51 | 3.84 ± 0.55 | −0.08 | 0.936 | |
| Critical thinking (1–5) | 3.39 ± 0.35 | 3.35 ± 0.49 | 0.33 | 0.744 | |
EBP Evidence Based Practice
a Fisher’s Exact Test
Effects of EBP education program for undergraduate nursing students
| Variables | Group | Mean ± Standard Deviation | Source | F | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Post-test 1 | Post-test 2 | |||||
| Before the program | Immediately after program | 6 weeks after program | |||||
| EBP Knowledge | Experimental | 3.26 ± 0.40 | 4.27 ± 0.51 | 4.16 ± 0.46 | Group | 22.35 | < 0.001 |
| Control | 3.27 ± 0.46 | 3.34 ± 0.55 | 3.33 ± 0.67 | Time | 25.56 | <.0001 | |
| Group x Time | 19.77 | < 0.001 | |||||
| EBP skills | Experimental | 9.01 ± 1.52 | 7.66 ± 1.62 | ||||
| Control | 3.44 ± 1.45 | 3.65 ± 1.63 | |||||
| t | 12.45 | 8.02 | |||||
| <.001 | <.001 | ||||||
| EBP attitudes | Experimental | 3.67 ± 0.36 | 4.33 ± 0.42 | 4.24 ± 0.42 | Group | 12.61 | 0.001 |
| Control | 3.79 ± 0.32 | 3.77 ± 0.34 | 3.72 ± 0.34 | Time | 18.95 | < 0.001 | |
| Group x Time | 24.05 | < 0.001 | |||||
| EBP competencies | Experimental | 3.06 ± 0.48 | 4.34 ± 0.37 | 4.18 ± 0.36 | Group | 39.12 | < 0.001 |
| Control | 3.04 ± 0.61 | 3.04 ± 0.51 | 3.14 ± 0.55 | Time | 58.59 | < 0.001 | |
| Group x Time | 51.47 | < 0.001 | |||||
| Future use of EBP | Experimental | 3.83 ± 0.51 | 4.33 ± 0.44 | 4.38 ± 0.47 | Group | 4.86 | 0.033 |
| Control | 3.84 ± 0.55 | 4.01 ± 0.56 | 3.85 ± 0.46 | Time | 12.39 | < 0.001 | |
| Group x Time | 7.30 | 0.001 | |||||
| Critical thinking | Experimental | 3.39 ± 0.35 | 3.72 ± 0.36 | 3.78 ± 0.37 | Group | 7.52 | 0.009 |
| Control | 3.35 ± 0.49 | 3.29 ± 0.42 | 3.30 ± 0.47 | Time | 9.24 | < 0.001 | |
| Group x Time | 17.07 | < 0.001 | |||||
Fig. 1Pretest, post test, and after 6 weeks test mean (±SEM) of EBP knowledge, EBP skills, EBP attitudes, EBP competencies, future use for EBP and critical thinking scores for experimental (n = 22) and control groups (n = 22)