BMC medical education · 2026
Comparing between face-to-face and mobile learning for improving nurses' performance in premature infant positioning: a quasi-experimental study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sabeti Fahimeh, Ranjbar Azadeh, Kashaki Mandana, Khanjari Sedigheh, Banazadeh Marjan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Proper positioning is widely recognized in neonatal care. Implementing evidence-based education to improve Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) nurses' competency in infant positioning performance is essential. Evidence-based educational strategies are critical to enhancing NICU nurses' competency in infant positioning.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of face-to-face training versus mobile learning (m-learning) utilizing multimedia resources on the positioning of preterm infants among NICU nurses.
METHODS: This quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study employed a nonequivalent control group design, with 90 convenience-selected nurses from the NICU assigned to one of three groups: control, face-to-face training, or mobile learning (m-learning). The intervention consisted of face-to-face training (30 min plus 10-15 min of bedside training over 2 weeks) and m-learning (interactive multimedia content via WhatsApp for 2 weeks). Data were collected using the Infant Positioning Assessment Tool (IPAT) at baseline (T1), one week (T2), and one month (T3) post-intervention.
RESULTS: Nurses' performance of infant positioning was in a "need to change" state in three groups preintervention (p > 0.05). Post-intervention, in T2, the control group remained in a "need to change" state (IPAT score = 4.71 ± 0.44), whereas both the face-to-face training group (IPAT score = 8.66 ± 0.55) and the m-learning group (IPAT score = 8.57 ± 0.40) were in an "acceptable" state. In T3, compared to T1, there was a significant difference in IPAT scores among the control, face-to-face training, and m-learning groups, respectively (IPAT scores = 4.66 ± 0.37, 6.63 ± 0.48, 7.88 ± 0.65, p < 0.001). Both intervention groups showed decline from T2, but the pattern differed markedly: all nurses in the face-to-face group (100%) returned to "need to change" status, while 40% of the m-learning group maintained acceptable performance. The m-learning group demonstrated significantly higher scores and better knowledge retention at one month follow-up compared to the face-to-face group.
CONCLUSION: Face-to-face and m-learning methods significantly improved nurses' ability to position premature infants, with m-learning showing better long-term knowledge retention. These findings confirm that each approach is effective on its own, while also suggesting that their unique strengths could be combined. Therefore, we recommend future research explore the effectiveness of blended learning strategies that combine the immediate feedback and practical experience of face-to-face training with the accessibility and reinforcement of m-learning.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of face-to-face training versus mobile learning (m-learning) utilizing multimedia resources on the positioning of preterm infants among NICU nurses.
METHODS: This quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study employed a nonequivalent control group design, with 90 convenience-selected nurses from the NICU assigned to one of three groups: control, face-to-face training, or mobile learning (m-learning). The intervention consisted of face-to-face training (30 min plus 10-15 min of bedside training over 2 weeks) and m-learning (interactive multimedia content via WhatsApp for 2 weeks). Data were collected using the Infant Positioning Assessment Tool (IPAT) at baseline (T1), one week (T2), and one month (T3) post-intervention.
RESULTS: Nurses' performance of infant positioning was in a "need to change" state in three groups preintervention (p > 0.05). Post-intervention, in T2, the control group remained in a "need to change" state (IPAT score = 4.71 ± 0.44), whereas both the face-to-face training group (IPAT score = 8.66 ± 0.55) and the m-learning group (IPAT score = 8.57 ± 0.40) were in an "acceptable" state. In T3, compared to T1, there was a significant difference in IPAT scores among the control, face-to-face training, and m-learning groups, respectively (IPAT scores = 4.66 ± 0.37, 6.63 ± 0.48, 7.88 ± 0.65, p < 0.001). Both intervention groups showed decline from T2, but the pattern differed markedly: all nurses in the face-to-face group (100%) returned to "need to change" status, while 40% of the m-learning group maintained acceptable performance. The m-learning group demonstrated significantly higher scores and better knowledge retention at one month follow-up compared to the face-to-face group.
CONCLUSION: Face-to-face and m-learning methods significantly improved nurses' ability to position premature infants, with m-learning showing better long-term knowledge retention. These findings confirm that each approach is effective on its own, while also suggesting that their unique strengths could be combined. Therefore, we recommend future research explore the effectiveness of blended learning strategies that combine the immediate feedback and practical experience of face-to-face training with the accessibility and reinforcement of m-learning.