The Effectiveness of E-Learning Application Developed for Chest Tube Care in Nursing Students
NCT ID: NCT06745713
Last Updated: 2024-12-20
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
108 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2024-08-13
2024-09-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Hypothesis 1:
H0: There is no significant difference between the chest tube care management knowledge scores of the students using the chest tube care management e-learning application and the control group students.
H1: There is a significant difference between the chest tube care management knowledge scores of the students using the chest tube care management e-learning application and the control group students.
Hypothesis 2:
H0: There is no significant difference between chest tube care management clinical reasoning readiness scale scores of students using chest tube care management e-learning application and control group students.
H1: There is a significant difference between the clinical reasoning readiness scale scores of the students using the chest tube care management e-learning application and the control group students.
Hypothesis 3:
H0: There is no significant difference between the chest tube care management self-directed learning skill levels of the students using the chest tube care management e-learning application and the control group students.
H1: There is a significant difference between the chest tube care management self-directed learning skill levels of the students using the chest tube care management e-learning application and the control group students.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
SEQUENTIAL
OTHER
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Experimental Group
They completed the chest tube care management training programme which includes 5 modules, 4 case scenarios and interactive questions on www.gtbyep.com website.
Turkish- Computer System Usability Questionnaire Short Version
Developed in 1995 by Lewis at IBM, the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) is one of the widely used questionnaires in the field of usability. The scale, which was adapted into Turkish by Erdinç in 2013, consists of 13 items in total. It has 4 sub-dimensions: system usefulness (items 1-6), information quality (items 7-9), interface quality (items 10-12) and general satisfaction (item 13). Each item is scored as 1 (Strongly agree) - 7 (Strongly disagree). The Cronbach α of the scale is \> .70 and the Cronbach α value for each sub-dimension varies between .73 and .92. A minimum score of 13 and a maximum score of 91 can be obtained from the scale. A low score is defined as good usability, and the higher the score, the lower the usability quality of the system (Erdinç \& Lewis, 2013).
Student Information Form
In the form developed by the researchers in line with the literature, a total of 12 questions were included to determine the socio-demographic characteristics of the students (such as age, gender, academic average, whether they provide care to patients with chest tubes, whether they receive training on chest tube care). All participants in the experimental and control groups were applied once as a pre-test.
Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students
It is a comprehensive assessment tool developed by Huang Huiman (2018) to determine the clinical reasoning readiness levels of nursing students in Taiwan (Ho et al., 2021; H.-M. Huang et al., 2018). 'Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students' consists of 4 sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions are 'awareness of clinical clues' (4 items), 'verification of clinical problems' (4 items), 'action determination and implementation' (4 items) and 'evaluation and reflection' (4 items). Each sub-dimension contains four items to assess students' clinical reasoning readiness levels. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 16 and the highest score is 80. Responses to the scale are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=decided, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree). Cronbach's α ranged from 0.894 for the total and 0.78 to 0.89 for each sub-dimension. The corrected item-total correlation is between 0.627-0.728. Higher scores indicate higher levels
Self-directed Learning Scale
The original Self-Managed Learning Scale was used as a self-report scale by Lounsbury et. al. (2009). The Turkish adaptation and validity and reliability study of the scale, which shows the extent to which individuals learn autonomously with a one-dimensional structure, was conducted by Demircioğlu, Öge, Fuçular, Çevik, Nazlıgül, and Özçelik in 2018. The scale is 5-point Likert-type and consists of 10 items. For each item, participants are expected to respond according to 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (No opinion), 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.85. In line with the scores obtained from the scale, above average self-directed learning skill means high and below average self-directed learning skill means low (Demircioğlu et al., 2018). Both groups were applied as pre-test and post-test.
Chest Tube Care Management Knowledge Test
It was created by the researchers in line with the evidence in the literature (Abuejheisheh et al., 2021; Basler, 2020; Bertrandt et al., 2019; Charnock \& Evans, 2001; El-Senousy, Mahrous, Abd-Al Salam, \& Zedan, 2020; Ho et al., 2021; Tarhan et al., 2016; Zisis et al., 2015). The 'Chest Tube Care Management Knowledge Test' was initially prepared as a total of 43 multiple-choice questions, including the headings and subheadings in each session (Abuejheisheh et al., 2021; Malone, 2015). Expert opinions were obtained from 5 faculty members with clinical experience and studies on chest tube care. The experts gave suitability scores to the knowledge test questions one by one on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1: The item is not suitable, 2: The item should be seriously revised, 3: Suitable should be slightly revised, 4: Suitable). In line with the suggestions from the experts, the questions were reorganised and 9 questions were removed. For the remaining 34 multiple-choice questions in the kno
Control Group
The subject content of chest tube care management in the nursing education curriculum was given. After the pre- and post-tests were completed in the training programme in which the experimental group was included, the control group was also included in the training programme on www.gtbyep.com. The control group also completed the training content as applied to the experimental group.
Student Information Form
In the form developed by the researchers in line with the literature, a total of 12 questions were included to determine the socio-demographic characteristics of the students (such as age, gender, academic average, whether they provide care to patients with chest tubes, whether they receive training on chest tube care). All participants in the experimental and control groups were applied once as a pre-test.
Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students
It is a comprehensive assessment tool developed by Huang Huiman (2018) to determine the clinical reasoning readiness levels of nursing students in Taiwan (Ho et al., 2021; H.-M. Huang et al., 2018). 'Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students' consists of 4 sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions are 'awareness of clinical clues' (4 items), 'verification of clinical problems' (4 items), 'action determination and implementation' (4 items) and 'evaluation and reflection' (4 items). Each sub-dimension contains four items to assess students' clinical reasoning readiness levels. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 16 and the highest score is 80. Responses to the scale are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=decided, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree). Cronbach's α ranged from 0.894 for the total and 0.78 to 0.89 for each sub-dimension. The corrected item-total correlation is between 0.627-0.728. Higher scores indicate higher levels
Self-directed Learning Scale
The original Self-Managed Learning Scale was used as a self-report scale by Lounsbury et. al. (2009). The Turkish adaptation and validity and reliability study of the scale, which shows the extent to which individuals learn autonomously with a one-dimensional structure, was conducted by Demircioğlu, Öge, Fuçular, Çevik, Nazlıgül, and Özçelik in 2018. The scale is 5-point Likert-type and consists of 10 items. For each item, participants are expected to respond according to 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (No opinion), 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.85. In line with the scores obtained from the scale, above average self-directed learning skill means high and below average self-directed learning skill means low (Demircioğlu et al., 2018). Both groups were applied as pre-test and post-test.
Chest Tube Care Management Knowledge Test
It was created by the researchers in line with the evidence in the literature (Abuejheisheh et al., 2021; Basler, 2020; Bertrandt et al., 2019; Charnock \& Evans, 2001; El-Senousy, Mahrous, Abd-Al Salam, \& Zedan, 2020; Ho et al., 2021; Tarhan et al., 2016; Zisis et al., 2015). The 'Chest Tube Care Management Knowledge Test' was initially prepared as a total of 43 multiple-choice questions, including the headings and subheadings in each session (Abuejheisheh et al., 2021; Malone, 2015). Expert opinions were obtained from 5 faculty members with clinical experience and studies on chest tube care. The experts gave suitability scores to the knowledge test questions one by one on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1: The item is not suitable, 2: The item should be seriously revised, 3: Suitable should be slightly revised, 4: Suitable). In line with the suggestions from the experts, the questions were reorganised and 9 questions were removed. For the remaining 34 multiple-choice questions in the kno
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Turkish- Computer System Usability Questionnaire Short Version
Developed in 1995 by Lewis at IBM, the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) is one of the widely used questionnaires in the field of usability. The scale, which was adapted into Turkish by Erdinç in 2013, consists of 13 items in total. It has 4 sub-dimensions: system usefulness (items 1-6), information quality (items 7-9), interface quality (items 10-12) and general satisfaction (item 13). Each item is scored as 1 (Strongly agree) - 7 (Strongly disagree). The Cronbach α of the scale is \> .70 and the Cronbach α value for each sub-dimension varies between .73 and .92. A minimum score of 13 and a maximum score of 91 can be obtained from the scale. A low score is defined as good usability, and the higher the score, the lower the usability quality of the system (Erdinç \& Lewis, 2013).
Student Information Form
In the form developed by the researchers in line with the literature, a total of 12 questions were included to determine the socio-demographic characteristics of the students (such as age, gender, academic average, whether they provide care to patients with chest tubes, whether they receive training on chest tube care). All participants in the experimental and control groups were applied once as a pre-test.
Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students
It is a comprehensive assessment tool developed by Huang Huiman (2018) to determine the clinical reasoning readiness levels of nursing students in Taiwan (Ho et al., 2021; H.-M. Huang et al., 2018). 'Clinical Reasoning Readiness Scale for Nursing Students' consists of 4 sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions are 'awareness of clinical clues' (4 items), 'verification of clinical problems' (4 items), 'action determination and implementation' (4 items) and 'evaluation and reflection' (4 items). Each sub-dimension contains four items to assess students' clinical reasoning readiness levels. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 16 and the highest score is 80. Responses to the scale are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=decided, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree). Cronbach's α ranged from 0.894 for the total and 0.78 to 0.89 for each sub-dimension. The corrected item-total correlation is between 0.627-0.728. Higher scores indicate higher levels
Self-directed Learning Scale
The original Self-Managed Learning Scale was used as a self-report scale by Lounsbury et. al. (2009). The Turkish adaptation and validity and reliability study of the scale, which shows the extent to which individuals learn autonomously with a one-dimensional structure, was conducted by Demircioğlu, Öge, Fuçular, Çevik, Nazlıgül, and Özçelik in 2018. The scale is 5-point Likert-type and consists of 10 items. For each item, participants are expected to respond according to 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (No opinion), 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.85. In line with the scores obtained from the scale, above average self-directed learning skill means high and below average self-directed learning skill means low (Demircioğlu et al., 2018). Both groups were applied as pre-test and post-test.
Chest Tube Care Management Knowledge Test
It was created by the researchers in line with the evidence in the literature (Abuejheisheh et al., 2021; Basler, 2020; Bertrandt et al., 2019; Charnock \& Evans, 2001; El-Senousy, Mahrous, Abd-Al Salam, \& Zedan, 2020; Ho et al., 2021; Tarhan et al., 2016; Zisis et al., 2015). The 'Chest Tube Care Management Knowledge Test' was initially prepared as a total of 43 multiple-choice questions, including the headings and subheadings in each session (Abuejheisheh et al., 2021; Malone, 2015). Expert opinions were obtained from 5 faculty members with clinical experience and studies on chest tube care. The experts gave suitability scores to the knowledge test questions one by one on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1: The item is not suitable, 2: The item should be seriously revised, 3: Suitable should be slightly revised, 4: Suitable). In line with the suggestions from the experts, the questions were reorganised and 9 questions were removed. For the remaining 34 multiple-choice questions in the kno
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* To be able to understand and speak Turkish,
* To be enrolled in the 3rd year of the Nursing Department,
* Taking Surgical Diseases Nursing course for the first time,
* To be able to access Internet,
* Voluntary acceptance to participate in the research.
Exclusion Criteria
* They did not participate in any of the steps of the e-learning application such as pre-test, watching the videos, post-test, evaluation activities, etc.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Gazi University Scientific Research Unit
UNKNOWN
Atılım University
OTHER
Gazi University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Sevil Güler
Prof. Dr.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Gazi University
Ankara, , Turkey (Türkiye)
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
E-770082166-302.08.01-509027
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id