An interventional study of Pedagogical Framework (Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain) and Traditional Method in Nursing Students Education on Neonatal Resuscitation, sponsored by University of Lahore. Completed at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 25 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-05-18.
Sponsored by University of Lahore · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
Virtually 10% of newborns suffer respiratory distress at birth thus need intervention from proficient health professionals. Pakistan is one of the top ten countries that carry two-thirds of the global burden of neonatal deaths. It is suggested that most of these deaths can be prevented through the provision of trained emergency birth attendants, in which education plays an integral role. Since its inception in the neonatal resuscitation program, we are still in the struggle to find out the best strategies to disseminate NRP knowledge, training, and guidelines that promise the best outcome. Hence, little published data on this phenomenon is available regarding undergraduate students. That determines the best way to educate them in performing the skills that urgently require an infrequent needed such as neonatal resuscitation. Therefore, this study intended to address this gap in the education of neonatal resuscitation through two different approaches. One is a traditional 2-step method and the other is an adapted Pedagogical framework (Lean, See, Practice, Prove, Do and Maintain).
Globally, nurses are the largest workforce in the healthcare system that are directly engaged in the provision of newborn care. They should be conversant and competent in neonatal resuscitation. However, the majority of nurses are not skillful in the respective field. The situation is not very different when we are talking about nursing students. Who are our future workforce, hence are found incompetent in emergency newborn management and neonatal resuscitation. It is well documented that effective educational programs in preservice settings such as schools of midwifery, nursing, and medicine, established more active forms of lifelong learning to improve the quality of care. While the transformation of theoretical knowledge into clinical practice requires effective teaching in the field of resuscitation is a vital element for all undergraduate students. However, like many other developing countries in Pakistan, mostly traditional methods are following in nursing education. While the traditional method of teaching is insufficient to meet the educational demands of nursing students in clinical practice. Hence, Nursing students often are unprepared and lacking confidence in simple, yet life-saving procedures such as neonatal resuscitation. Therefore, incorporating an effective model and framework in nursing education is needed that could enhance nursing students' skills and improve clinical outcomes. The "Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain" (LSPPDM) pedagogy is one of such frameworks synthesized after intensely reviewing the literature. This framework is acting as a guiding path for educators in teaching and learning procedural skills. As Knowledge is considering a prerequisite for competence in skill performance and to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational program self -efficacy measurement is an important tool. Thus, the important variables knowledge, self-efficacy, and skill have been selected for this study. Thus, the study objective will be:
To compare the knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy among undergraduate nursing students learning of neonatal resuscitation through "Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, Maintain pedagogy" as compared to those who will learn through the traditional method.
This study will contribute essentially to determine the effectiveness of an adapted pedagogical framework in the teaching and learning of neonatal resuscitation skills, especially in a resource-limited society. Moreover, the study findings will help the organization to develop strategies for improving nursing education.
University of Lahore is the lead sponsor of 223 studies on the registry; 40 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Group A will be taught through the two steps traditional method (2 lectures/week + 1 skill lab/week). First, learn through didactic Lectures and then practice skills on the Mannequins. The educational lecture content will be the same for both groups.
Other: Traditional Method
Group B will learn through the 5-step method \[ 2 lectures/week + video + 2skill lab/week (1 session under instructor + 1 session for skill maintenance)\], learn skill, see the video on resuscitation, practice on simulator, prove through practice, observe skill on clinical rotation and lastly maintain it through clinical supplemented with simulation.
Other: Pedagogical Framework (Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain)
The "Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain" (LSPPDM) pedagogy is acting as a guiding path for educators in teaching and learning procedural skills. It is synthesized after intensely reviewing the literature comprises steps. In the 1st step, learners learn through didactic lectures, further proceeding to see procedural videos. The 3rd step, "Practice" expose learners to perform the skill on a simulator. In the 4th step "Prove" the learner proves the skill. The 5th step Do comprise real-life exposure through the clinical rotation. Then, finally the 6th step"Maintain" the learner maintains skill supplemented with simulation as needed.
The traditional method group learns through 2-step method. 1. didactic lectures on neonatal resuscitation were delivered. 2. Practice skill on mannequins
Knowledge Questionnaire
knowledge is considering awareness of Neonatal resuscitation. It will be measured through a 17-item multiple-choice question adopted from Knowledge Question total score ranged from 0 to 17. A higher score means have more knowledge.
Time frame: before intervention and 6 weeks after intervention
Self-efficacy for Neonatal Resuscitation (SENR)
The SENR instrument is a 23-item scale that measured nursing students' perception of confidence in their capabilities in neonatal resuscitation. All SENR items were valued on a 10-point Likert scale. The total score ranged from 0 to 230. A higher score means have more self-efficacy.
Time frame: before intervention and 6 weeks after intervention
Neonatal Resuscitation Checklist
A 30 items checklist will be used. Each of the correct actions was graded as 1=yes and for wrong action 0=no. The total score ranged from 0 to 30. The total score ranged from 0 to 30. A higher score means have more skill.
Time frame: before intervention and 6 weeks after intervention
initially, 62 participants (31 in each group) were recruited. one participant from each group was lost in follow-up due to some personal reasons. The final sample size remained 60 (30 in each group).
| Milestone | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group |
|---|---|---|
| Started | 31 | 31 |
| Completed | 30 | 30 |
| Not completed | 1 | 1 |
| Withdrew: Lost to follow-up | 1 | 1 |
knowledge is considering awareness of Neonatal resuscitation. It will be measured through a 17-item multiple-choice question adopted from Knowledge Question total score ranged from 0 to 17. A higher score means have more knowledge.
| score on a scale | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group |
|---|---|---|
| before 6 weeks (pre data) | 5.90 ± 1.95 | 5.87 ± 1.87 |
| After 6 weeks (Post data) | 9.97 ± 1.22 | 13.33 ± 1.30 |
The SENR instrument is a 23-item scale that measured nursing students' perception of confidence in their capabilities in neonatal resuscitation. All SENR items were valued on a 10-point Likert scale. The total score ranged from 0 to 230. A higher score means have more self-efficacy.
| score on a scale | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group |
|---|---|---|
| Before 6 weeks (pre data) | 96.1 ± 35.5 | 95.9 ± 37.6 |
| After 6 weeks (Post data) | 186.6 ± 25.3 | 188.6 ± 24.2 |
A 30 items checklist will be used. Each of the correct actions was graded as 1=yes and for wrong action 0=no. The total score ranged from 0 to 30. The total score ranged from 0 to 30. A higher score means have more skill.
| score on a scale | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group |
|---|---|---|
| Before intervention (pre data) | 3.30 ± 1.18 | 3.37 ± 1.10 |
| 6 weeks after intervention (post data) | 16.20 ± 2.40 | 24.27 ± 3.47 |
Collected over 6 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Group | 0/30 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) |
| Pedagogical Group | 0/30 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) |
| Age, Continuous(years) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 22.3 ± 0.75 | 21.9 ± 1.1 | 22 ± 1.1 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 30 | 30 | 60 |
| Male | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count of participants | — | — | 0 |
| Year of Professional Education(participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd year | 14 | 15 | 30 |
| 4th year | 16 | 15 | 30 |
| Primary Language(participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urdu | 29 | 29 | 58 |
| Punjabi | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Marital Status(participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unmarried | 29 | 30 | 59 |
| Married | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Residential Area(participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Urban | 27 | 28 | 55 |
| Division in previous results(participants) | Traditional Group | Pedagogical Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 28 | 30 | 58 |
| Second | 2 | 0 | 2 |
1 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in May 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Lahore