For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
1
views
11
references
 Top references
cited by
2
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      208
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Distance Accessible Education Model: Teaching Skills to Nurse Practitioners

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Health care providers in rural areas are often unable to attend continuing education trainings due to limited staffing coverage. The coronavirus pandemic has created a unique situation, requiring many health care providers to obtain continuing education through virtual offerings.

          Methods

          This study used a descriptive design with a team-developed presurvey for demographics, 2 posttraining instruments, and a team-developed competency validation checklist.

          Results

          The study sample included nurse practitioner (NP) students and practicing NPs. All participants met competency in the skills validation.

          Discussion

          The results indicate that continuing education and competency validation of procedures is feasible in a virtual format.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review.

          Mohammad Murad, Fernando Coto-Yglesias, Prathibha Varkey … (2010)
          Given the continuous advances in the biomedical sciences, health care professionals need to develop the skills necessary for life-long learning. Self-directed learning (SDL) is suggested as the methodology of choice in this context. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of SDL in improving learning outcomes in health professionals. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC and PsycINFO through to August 2009. Eligible studies were comparative and evaluated the effect of SDL interventions on learning outcomes in the domains of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Two reviewers working independently selected studies and extracted data. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated from each study and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The final analysis included 59 studies that enrolled 8011 learners. Twenty-five studies (42%) were randomised. The overall methodological quality of the studies was moderate. Compared with traditional teaching methods, SDL was associated with a moderate increase in the knowledge domain (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.67), a trivial and non-statistically significant increase in the skills domain (SMD 0.05, 95% CI-0.05 to 0.22), and a non-significant increase in the attitudes domain (SMD 0.39, 95% CI-0.03 to 0.81). Heterogeneity was significant in all analyses. When learners were involved in choosing learning resources, SDL was more effective. Advanced learners seemed to benefit more from SDL. Moderate quality evidence suggests that SDL in health professions education is associated with moderate improvement in the knowledge domain compared with traditional teaching methods and may be as effective in the skills and attitudes domains. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2010.
          Article 0 comments Cited 96 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions

            Helen Richmond, Bethan Copsey, Amanda Hall … (2017)
            Background Online training is growing in popularity and yet its effectiveness for training licensed health professionals (HCPs) in clinical interventions is not clear. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of online versus alternative training methods in clinical interventions for licensed Health Care Professionals (HCPs) on outcomes of knowledge acquisition, practical skills, clinical behaviour, self-efficacy and satisfaction. Methods Seven databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2000 to June 2015. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Comparative effects were summarised as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for three contrasts of online versus (i) interactive workshops (ii) taught lectures and (iii) written/electronic manuals. Results We included 14 studies with a total of 1089 participants. Most trials studied medical professionals, used a workshop or lecture comparison, were of high risk of bias and had small sample sizes (range 21-183). Using the GRADE approach, we found low quality evidence that there was no difference between online training and an interactive workshop for clinical behaviour SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.37). We found very low quality evidence of no difference between online methods and both a workshop and lecture for knowledge (workshop: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.36); lecture: SMD 0.22 (95% CI: -0.08, 0.51)). Lastly, compared to a manual (n = 3/14), we found very low quality evidence that online methods were superior for knowledge SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.96). There were too few studies to draw any conclusions on the effects of online training for practical skills, self-efficacy, and satisfaction across all contrasts. Conclusions It is likely that online methods may be as effective as alternative methods for training HCPs in clinical interventions for the outcomes of knowledge and clinical behaviour. However, the low quality of the evidence precludes drawing firm conclusions on the relative effectiveness of these training methods. Moreover, the confidence intervals around our effect sizes were large and could encompass important differences in effectiveness. More robust, adequately powered RCTs are needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Article 0 comments Cited 34 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Blended learning versus face-to-face learning in an undergraduate nursing health assessment course: A quasi-experimental study

              Keri-Ann Berga, Elisha Vadnais, Jody Nelson … (2021)
              Article 0 comments Cited 19 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Nurse Pract
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Nurse Pract
                Title: The Journal for Nurse Practitioners
                Publisher: Elsevier Inc.
                ISSN (Print): 1555-4155
                ISSN (Electronic): 1878-058X
                Publication date PMC-release: 19 June 2021
                Publication date (Print): September 2021
                Publication date (Electronic): 19 June 2021
                Volume: 17
                Issue: 8
                Pages: 999-1003
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S1555-4155(21)00237-3
                DOI: 10.1016/j.nurpra.2021.05.018
                PMC ID: 8828427
                SO-VID: 8c1ab345-5bb5-4bbe-b7a4-fdba6a82c121
                Copyright © © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                License:

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: By Faculty for Faculty

                Keywords: continuing education,nurse practitioners,primary care procedures,simulation,virtual learning
                Data availability:
                Keywords: continuing education, nurse practitioners, primary care procedures, simulation, virtual learning

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content208

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors54

                See all reference authors