Effect of Video vs. Lecture/Demonstration in Improving Nursing Interns’ Knowledge and Skills Regarding External Ventricular Drain (EVD): A Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthcare settings ought to consider creative strategies with regard to training nurses in clinical competencies, including trainee nurses and new nurses with limited resources. This study aimed to develop a high-quality educational video to gauge the effect of video instruction versus lecture demonstration in improving the skills and knowledge of nurse interns on the subject of external ventricular drain. Method: The study used a quasi-experimental post-test design and took place from June 2019 until May 2020. The 80 participants, all nurse interns, were randomly assigned to one of two teaching methods (video instruction or lecture demonstration). The data were gathered using a questionnaire prepared by the researchers. Results: The mean score of the lecture group was 68.2 +/-21.1, and in the video group, 78.5 +/-21.6. This means that the video group outperformed the lecture group in terms of skill (p=0.034). The findings showed no statistically significant difference in the groups’ overall knowledge and competence ratings. Conclusion: Video is a sound educational strategy, and the clinical education system can support the use of videos as a complementary method to teach clinical skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".