Accès libre

Effectiveness of experiential teaching method on the development of nursing students’ skill competence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bo Zhang
Bo Zhang
, 
Qing-Yong Ma
Qing-Yong Ma
, 
Xiang-Shu Cui
Xiang-Shu Cui
, 
Qi-Gui Xiao
Qi-Gui Xiao
, 
Hong-Yan Jin
Hong-Yan Jin
, 
Xue Chen
Xue Chen
 et 
Yi-Yan Chen
Yi-Yan Chen
   | 05 janv. 2021
Frontiers of Nursing's Cover Image
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Citez
Article Category: Original article
Publié en ligne: 05 janv. 2021
Pages: 359 - 368
Reçu: 02 avr. 2020
Accepté: 22 juin 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2020-0045
Mots clés
© 2020 Bo Zhang et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Flowchart of the literature search.
Flowchart of the literature search.

Figure 2

Forest plot of the nursing students’ skill score.
Forest plot of the nursing students’ skill score.

Figure 3

Summary of subgroup analyses for the skills score.
Summary of subgroup analyses for the skills score.

Figure 4

Subgroup analysis of the effect of subjects on nursing students’ operational achievements.
Subgroup analysis of the effect of subjects on nursing students’ operational achievements.

Figure 5

Subgroup analysis of the effect of intervention time on nursing students’ operational achievement.
Subgroup analysis of the effect of intervention time on nursing students’ operational achievement.

Sensitivity analysis.

ItemsFixed-effect modelRandom-effect model
SMD95% CII2 (%)SMD95% CII2 (%)
Skill score1.04(0.94, 1.15)861.06(0.76, 1.35)86
Learning interest0.92(0.79, 1.06)880.90(0.50, 1.30)88
Ability to judge and innovative thinking1.00(0.76, 1.24)921.22(0.36, 2.09)92
Abilities of understanding and perception0.58(0.34, 0.83)00.58(0.34, 0.83)0
Teaching satisfaction1.26(1.12, 1.39)881.29(0.88, 1.70)88
Ability to analyze and solve problems0.74(0.55, 0.93)880.85(0.28, 1.41)88

Subgroup analyses.

CharacteristicsnPooled Cohen's d (95% CI)PHeterogeneity testP (Egger's test)
I2P
Gender0
  Female31.08 (0.81,1.34)00.9310.10
  Mixed71.24 (1.09,1.38)00.8770.44
  No report50.72 (0.54,0.91)0.060.5460.78
Educational background0
  Secondary vocational school education31.35 (1.08,1.63)0.040.6720.57
  Junior college81.06 (0.93,1.19)00.9080.21
  Undergraduate40.80 (0.57,1.03)00.7750.84
Subject0
  Fundamentals of nursing41.38 (1.20,1.56)0.180.3800.27
  Surgical nursing30.82 (0.56,1.07)00.9390.93
  Medical nursing40.57 (0.36,0.78)0.5200.23
  Other41.27 (1.05,1.49)00.871-
Duration of intervention0
  ≤1 month21.54 (1.31,1.76)00.8660.78
  1–4 months50.54 (0.35,0.73)0.6300.14
  >4 months30.96 (0.69,1.24)00.8010.69
  No report51.26 (1.08,1.45)00.8790.01
Area0
  South110.96 (0.82,1.10)00.8470.43
  North41.18 (1.02,1.35)00.9140.57

Characteristics of the 15 studies of the effect of the experiential teaching method on nursing students’ education.

Included studyDesignT (N)C (N)GenderEducational backgroundDuration of interventionSubjectAreaOutcomes
Mao et al.18 (2016)RCT4040FemaleSecondary vocational school educationNo reportFundamentals of nursingSouth(1)(2)
Shen and Zhu19 (2018)RCT5050MixedSecondary vocational school educationNo reportFundamentals of nursingSouth(1)(2)
Zhou24 (2019)RCT3535No reportSecondary vocational school education17 monthsMixed nursingSouth(1)(2)
Li et al.15 (2015)RCT5452No reportJunior collegeNo reportFundamentals of nursingSouth(1)(3)
Zhou and Shi25 (2019)RCT5255FemaleJunior collegeNo reportSurgical nursingSouth(1)(3)(6)
Chen13 (2015)RCT3030MixedUndergraduate11 monthsEmergency nursingSouth(1)(4)
Yi21 (2016)RCT5452No reportJunior college8 monthsMixed nursingSouth(1)(2)
Tian20 (2017)RCT5655No reportJunior college4 monthsMedical nursingNorth(1)(2)(3)(4)
Yi22 (2016)RCT8080MixedJunior collegeNo reportNursing AestheticsNorth(1)(2)
Li16 (2017)RCT156151MixedJunior college2 weeksFundamentals of nursingNorth(1)(2)(3)
Zhang et al.27 (2016)RCT4242FemaleJunior college4 weeksSurgical nursingSouth(1)(2)(3)(4)
Du14 (2015)RCT4545MixedJunior college6 weeksMedical nursingSouth(1)(3)(5)(6)
Li and Zhang17 (2018)RCT5050No reportUndergraduate6 weeksMedical nursingSouth(1)(4)(6)
Yang and Zhang23 (2014)RCT4040MixedUndergraduate6 weeksSurgical nursingSouth(1)(3)(5)(6)
Zhang26 (2018)RCT5050MixedUndergraduate6 weeksMedical nursingNorth(1)(3)(5)(6)

Risk of bias assessment of the 15 included studies.

Included studyRandom sequence generationAllocation concealmentBlindingIncomplete outcome dataSelective reportingOther bias
ParticipantsOutcome assessment
Mao et al.18 (2016)Yes (randomized table)UnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Shen and Zhu19 (2018)Yes (randomized table)UnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Zhou24 (2019)Yes (randomized table)UnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Li et al.15 (2015)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Zhou and Shi25 (2019)Yes (lottery)UnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Chen13 (2015)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Yi21 (2016)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Tian20 (2017)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Yi22 (2016)UnclearYesUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Li16 (2017)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Zhang et al.27 (2016)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Du14 (2015)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Li and Zhang17 (2018)UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Yang and Zhang23 (2014)Yes (randomized table)UnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone
Zhang26 (2018)Yes (block randomization)UnclearUnclearUnclearNoneNoneNone

The result of the secondary outcome indicator.

Students’ feedbackNumber of included studiesES (95% CI)I2 (%)P (Egger's test)
Learning interest80.93 (0.79–1.06)88.400.652
Ability to judge and innovative thinking41.01 (0.77–1.25)92.200.122
Ability to understand and perceive30.59 (0.34–0.83)0.000.306
Ability to think and analyze problems50.75 (0.55–0.94)88.400.079
Teaching satisfaction81.26 (1.13–1.40)88.300.813
eISSN:
2544-8994
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
4 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Medicine, Assistive Professions, Nursing
RSS Feed de la revue