Background
Methods
Design
Quantitative study
Participants
Data collection and materials
Data analysis
Qualitative study
Participants
Data collection and materials
Data analysis
Mixed methods integration
Results
Quantitative study
Characteristic | Total (N = 719) | |
---|---|---|
n | % | |
Sex, men | 337 | 46.9 |
Age, mean (SD) | 23.1 | (3.4) |
English proficiency | ||
>Moderate | 406 | 56.5 |
Low | 262 | 36.4 |
Very low | 51 | 7.1 |
High school grade | ||
Good and higher | 167 | 23.2 |
Satisfactory | 209 | 29.1 |
Limited achievement | 343 | 47.7 |
Previous working experience | 177 | 24.6 |
Length of working experience in months, mean (SD) | 42.5 | (35.2) |
Type of school (public) | 568 | 79.0 |
Type of course, upgrading course from primary nurses | 90 | 12.5 |
Internship (finished) | 230 | 32.0 |
Plan after graduation | ||
Work as nurse | 683 | 95.0 |
Continue to study | 528 | 73.4 |
Neither study nor work in nursing | 36 | 5.0 |
Variables | Ba | 95% CI for B | βb | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Case-based learning*(vs. CBL-0) | ||||
CBL-C2 | 2.82 | (− 4.41, 10.04) | 0.03 | 0.445 |
CBL-C1 | −2.63 | (− 12.78, 7.51) | −0.02 | 0.610 |
CBL-C1C2 | 5.19 | (1.25, 9.13) | 0.10 | 0.010 |
Age | −0.10 | (− 0.92, 0.72) | −0.01 | 0.813 |
Sex (vs.man) | ||||
Woman | –1.58 | (− 5.14, 1.98) | −0.03 | 0.385 |
High school grade (vs. limited achievement) | ||||
Satisfactory | 8.62 | (4.61, 12.63) | 0.16 | < 0.001 |
>Good | 6.42 | (2.01, 10.84) | 0.11 | 0.004 |
English proficiency (vs. very low) | ||||
Low | 4.23 | (− 2.40, 10.86) | 0.05 | 0.211 |
>Moderate | 8.90 | (2.28, 15.51) | 0.10 | 0.008 |
Previous working experience (vs. none) | ||||
<12 months | 7.01 | (1.22, 12.80) | 0.09 | 0.018 |
13–48 months | 10.03 | (0.19, 19.88) | 0.07 | 0.046 |
>49 months | 4.11 | (− 8.70, 16.92) | 0.02 | 0.529 |
Type of program (vs. upgrading course) | ||||
Three-year program | 3.05 | (− 8.07, 14.17) | 0.02 | 0.590 |
Type of school (vs. public school) | ||||
Private school | 0.17 | (− 5.78, 6.11) | 0.00 | 0.956 |
Internship (vs. not done yet) | ||||
Finished | 3.50 | (− 0.59, 7.59) | 0.06 | 0.093 |
Self-efficacy | 1.56 | (1.10, 2.02) | 0.24 | < 0.001 |
Satisfaction | ||||
Teaching by faculty members | 0.56 | (0.21, 0.90) | 0.15 | 0.002 |
Teaching by preceptors | 0.28 | (− 0.10, 0.66) | 0.07 | 0.149 |
Program | 1.21 | (0.65, 1.77) | 0.20 | < 0.001 |
Environment | −0.11 | (− 1.57, 1.36) | −0.01 | 0.886 |
Mixed methods findings
Key finding | Quantitative findings (Multiple regression analysis) | Qualitative findings (Themes) | Meta inference |
---|---|---|---|
CBL experience and nursing competency development | The CBL-C1C2 group was positively associated with a high frequency of competencies (B = 5.19; 95% CI = 1.25, 9.13) compared with the CBL-0 group. | Learning and teaching experiences of CBL in a classroom and a clinical practicum | Confirmation Teaching through CBL in group work was introduced in the classroom and the clinical practicum on a pilot basis, which explains the improvements observed in the nursing competency scores. |
Satisfaction with the teaching by faculty members and preceptors and nursing competency development | The subjective satisfaction of the students with the teaching by faculty members (B = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.2, 0.9) was positively associated with a high frequency of competencies. | Students’ experience and needs during clinical practicum through the support of faculty members and preceptors - Limited support from faculty members - Need for active support from faculty members and preceptors | Complementarity A few students were dissatisfied with the lack of support from the faculty members during the clinical practicum. Meanwhile, those who were satisfied exhibited improved nursing competency scores. |
The satisfaction of the students with the program and nursing competency development | The subjective satisfaction of the students with the program (B = 1.21; 95% CI = 0.7, 1.8) was positively associated with a high frequency of competencies. | Inconsistencies between theory and practice - Clinical nursing techniques - Implementation of the nursing process | Expansion Inconsistencies in the program (e.g., clinical nursing technique and process) explain the satisfaction with the program through the nursing competency scores. |
CBL experience and nursing competency development
‘Teacher gave the case scenario for students to learn in class by using the nursing care plan form. After that, we presented in class, receive peer evaluation, and teacher’s feedback’. (Student, R3-S3)
‘Faculty members added a clinical case assignment for students to apply at the educational institution and hospital’. (Faculty, R4-S3)‘We assigned the case study to students using the clinical case assignment form developed by the school’. (Preceptor, R3-H2)
Satisfaction of students with teaching by faculty members and preceptors and nursing competency development
‘Teachers only came to the hospitals with us on the first day to do the orientation. They (teachers) didn’t monitor our clinical skills at the bedside’. (Student, R3-S6)
‘My title was a clinical instructor, but I just spent 30 percent of my task at clinical practicum’. (Faculty, R3-S2)
‘We need active support from both the teachers and the preceptors’. (Student, R2-S6)
‘Because of so many patients and plenty of work to do in the hospital, we must first address our main core tasks (caring for patients). So, our preceptors have a limited time to coach and demonstrate to the students’. (Preceptor, R2-H4)
Satisfaction of students with the programme and nursing competency development
‘Sometimes, we had to practice clinical skills which we have not learned at school yet’. (Student, R2-S6)
‘Students needed to practice with the mannequins at the school. At the hospital, they had to follow the updated techniques’. (Preceptor, R3-H2)
‘Teachers always asked us to do the nursing process, but at the hospital, we just completed taking vital signs’. (Student, R4-S2)
‘In the nursing records at the hospital, ‘planning’ and ‘implementation’ steps were combined. However, students did not recognise that the two steps were already combined’. (Faculty, R1-S4)