| Article 1– Reference citation
Khatiban and Sangestani (2014). The effects of using problem-based learning in the clinical nursing education on the students’ outcomes in Iran: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(6), 698-703. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2014.10.002 |
Article 2 -Reference citation
Cote, Gagnon, Houme, Abdeljelil, and Gagnon (2012). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict nurses’ intention to integrate research evidence into clinical decision‐making. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(10), 2289-2298. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05922.x |
Article 3 – Reference citation
Mulready-Shick, Flanagan, Banister, Mylott, and Curtin (2013). Evaluating dedicated education units for clinical education quality.Journal of Nursing Education, 52(11), 606-614. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20131014-07 |
In the study by Khatiban and Sangestani (2014) had a total of 70 university undergraduate students in their sample. The authors obtained approval of their study and participants signed a voluntary informed consent form before the enrollment in the study. The authors declared there were no conflicts. The study was funded by the research chancellor of Hamadan University of medical sciences. The research instruments were three questionnaires and a checklist which were sent to 11 academic members of three major Iranian universities of medical sciences for content and face validity. Adjustments were made to the instruments following comments of the academic members. The anonymity and privacy of the study participants were not disclosed, nor how anonymity and privacy would be maintained throughout the study including data gathering, data analysis, and data interpretation. Biases were not identified or how any would be addressed. It is not known what the risk and benefits were to the participants who volunteered for the study.
The study sample by Cote et al. (2012) included 336 nurses working in a university hospital. The authors obtained approval of their study from the research ethics board of the participating hospital. There was no mention of informed consent. The authors declared there were no conflicts. The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The research instrument was a questionnaire that was developed following a qualitative phase that comprised 19 interviews and a literature review. A group of four experts examined the face validity of the questionnaire. No further details were given as to whether or not adjustments were made to the questionnaire. The anonymity and privacy of the study participants were not disclosed or how this would be maintained throughout the study including data gathering, data analysis, and data interpretation. Biases were not identified nor were how any would be addressed. It is not known what the risk and benefits were to the participants who volunteered for the study.
Mulready-Shick et al. (2013) had a study sample of 165 first semester junior-level nursing students. The authors obtained approval for their study and participants signed a voluntary informed consent form before enrollment in the study. The authors have disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise. The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s evaluating innovations in nursing education national program office. Approval of the study, including human subjects’ protection, was granted by the institutional review boards at the university and all participating hospitals. Students were queried via an online survey instrument to evaluate their perceptions of educational quality during their clinical education experiences. The survey instrument was reviewed by the DEU partnership members for content validity. No other information was provided on the revision of the instrument. The anonymity and privacy of the study participants were not disclosed or how this would be maintained throughout the study including data gathering, data analysis, and data interpretation. Biases were not identified nor how any would be addressed. It is not known what the risk to participants’ was; however, some benefits to the participants who volunteered for the studies were disclosed. The benefits of the DEU model included greater growth in clinical learning and quality and safety competency development. The benefit in optimizing clinical learning was also confirmed within the larger study by other study participants. An additional benefit of the DEU model was the students spending more time in the instructional coaching that occurred during patient care with their clinical instructors than did students in traditional units.