The effect of blended educational methods in communication skills in nursing with students’ interactions with patients: A quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Regarding the importance of effective communication in delivering satisfactory nursing care, the current study aims to assess the effect of blended educational methods (lecturing, workshop, role-playing, and group discussion) in nursing students’ communication skills course. Materials and Methods: This educational evaluation study was conducted in two educational steps using the quasi-experimental method in Ramsar School of Nursing and Midwifery in 2015. In the first step, communication skills were taught in blended educational methods to all newly admitted nursing students of the fall semester (n = 33). In the second step, after 2 weeks, to evaluate the educational outcome, the communication skills of the students as an experimental group were compared with those of students in the fifth semester as a control group who did not receive any communication skills training (n = 25). Results: The results of the paired sample t -test showed a significant difference in the scores for the pre-test and post-test ( P < .001). The results of an independent t -test do not indicate any significant difference between the two groups. Only in the listening skills domain, for the item “Avoiding interrupting the audience”, there was a significant difference between the control group and the experimental group ( P = 0.04). Two-way multivariate analysis of variance based on Wilks Lambda effect shows that only gender has a significant effect in communication skills terms (F (7, 45) =2.590, P < .001, η 2 = 0.287). Conclusion: According to the results, participating in blended methods for communication skills courses can be as effective in improving communication skills as 2 years of experiential learning of communication 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".