| Literature DB >> 34011060 |
Hui Tan1, Erjia Huang1, Xicheng Deng2, Shayuan Ouyang1.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: We aimed to explore the application of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology with problem-based learning (PBL) teaching model in clinical nursing education of congenital heart surgery, and to further improve the teaching quality of clinical nursing in congenital heart surgery. In this study, a total of 132 trainees of clinical nursing in congenital heart surgery from a grade-A tertiary hospital in 2019 were selected and randomly divided into 3D printing group or traditional group. The 3D printing group was taught with 3D printed heart models combined with PBL teaching technique, while the traditional group used conventional teaching aids combined with PBL technique for teaching. After the teaching process, the 2 groups of nursing students were assessed and surveyed separately to evaluate the results. Compared to the traditional group, the theoretical scores, clinical nursing thinking ability, self-evaluation for comprehensive ability, and teaching satisfaction from the questionnaires filled by the 3D printing group were all higher than the traditional group. The difference was found to be statistically significant (P < .05). Our study has shown the 3D printing technology combined with the PBL teaching technique in the clinical nursing teaching of congenital heart surgery achieved good results.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34011060 PMCID: PMC8137022 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025918
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Demographics of all subjects.
| 3D printing group (n = 64) | Traditional group (n = 64) | ||
| Age (yrs) | 20.3 | 20.1 | .13 |
| Education | 66 | 66 | .20 |
| Nursing school A (Diploma) | 18 | 18 | |
| Nursing school B (Bachelor) | 23 | 23 | |
| Nursing school C (Diploma) | 25 | 25 | |
| Male students in each group | 5 | 3 | .72 |
Figure 1A patient-specific ASD 3d printed heart model with resin.
Figure 2A commercial normal heart model.
Comparison of baseline scores of congenital heart disease anatomy knowledge, scores of theoretical knowledge of atrial septal defect (ASD) after class between the 2 groups of nursing students (point, [ ± s]).
| 3D printing group | Traditional group | |||
| Observation indices | n = 66 | n = 66 | ||
| Baseline scores of anatomical knowledge for congenital heart disease. | (4.11 ± 1.40) | (3.80 ± 1.24) | 1.32 | .09 |
| Scores of ASD class knowledge examination. | (7.08 ± 1.66) | (6.56 ± 1.17) | 2.08 | .02 |
Comparison of the self-evaluation of comprehensive ability and the teaching satisfaction score of the 2 groups (point, [ ± s]).
| 3D printing group | Traditional group | |||
| Observation indices | n = 66 | n = 66 | ||
| Interest in learning about congenital heart disease. | (4.44 ± 0.66) | (4.18 ± 0.70) | 2.18 | .03 |
| Anatomy knowledge in the cardiovascular system. | (4.41 ± 0.61) | (4.11 ± 0.50) | 3.32 | <.01 |
| Ability to understand the knowledge of congenital heart disease. | (4.44 ± 0.64) | (4.06 ± 0.52) | 3.79 | <.01 |
| Ability to understand the nursing knowledge of congenital heart disease. | (4.48 ± 0.56) | (4.24 ± 0.56) | 2.49 | .01 |
| Confidence in nursing child patients with congenital heart disease. | (4.45 ± 0.61) | (4.18 ± 0.58) | 2.71 | <.01 |
| Satisfaction with teaching methods. | (4.50 ± 0.59) | (4.23 ± 0.67) | 3.36 | .02 |
The comparison of the results of critical thinking ability assessment of the 2 groups of nursing students [point, ([ ± s]).
| 3D Printing group | Traditional group | |||
| Observation indices | n = 64 | n = 66 | T value | |
| Total Score | (299.98 ± 1.20) | (282.61 ± 0.67) | 12.586 | <.01 |
| Truth-seeking | (42.00 ± 0.58) | (40.67 ± 0.29) | 2.046 | .02 |
| Open-mindedness | (43.73 ± 0.52) | (40.83 ± 0.26) | 4.913 | <.01 |
| Analytical ability | (42.59 ± 0.42) | (39.95 ± 0.23) | 5.449 | <.01 |
| Systemic ability | (44.56 ± 0.27) | (40.30 ± 0.23) | 11.926 | <.01 |
| Confidence in thinking | (44.38 ± 0.24) | (41.16 ± 0.28) | 8.878 | <.01 |
| Curiosity | (42.21 ± 0.36) | (40.73 ± 0.42) | 2.690 | <.01 |
| cognitive Maturity | (40.52 ± 0.45) | (38.97 ± 0.35) | 2.716 | <.01 |