ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Evaluation of "nursing ethics-professional teaching" integrated ward-round in practicing nursing students: a practical study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompetence in ethical decision making and moral sensitivity are becoming increasingly important in nursing education. While teaching reforms have been conducted in nursing ethics, these reforms often fail to drive the adequate development of students’ critical thinking and ethical decision-making skills. To address this gap, in this study, a “nursing ethics–professional teaching” program is constructed on the basis of Rest’s ethical decision-making model, and its effects on enhancing the ethical decision-making ability and sensitivity of nursing interns are explored.
methodsLimited by the prespecified monthly departmental rotation schedule and the need to avoid intergroup contamination, this nonrandomized controlled study used an imbalanced design to divide all 99 undergraduate nursing interns into an intervention group (n = 24) and a control group (n = 75). They received six months of “nursing ethics–professional teaching” training, in which ward rounds and routine ward-round teaching, respectively, were integrated. An investigation was conducted before and after the intervention, in which the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Judgments Regarding Nursing Decisions (JAND) were used to analyze the differences in the development and the correlation of the ethical sensitivity and decision-making ability between the two groups.
resultsAfter the intervention, both the MSQ and JAND scores were significantly higher for the intervention group than they were for the control group (t = 7.371 and 6.377, respectively; both P < 0.001). Subgroup comparisons conducted before and after the intervention revealed unexpected decreases in MSQ scores in the control group (t = 3.784, P < 0.01), which contrasted sharply with the significant increase that was revealed in MSQ scores in the intervention group (t=-5.925, P < 0.001) and those in the JAND scores across both groups (t=-23.115 and − 24.092, both P < 0.001). Both the intervention method and its interaction with the intervention duration significantly affected the MSQ (F = 25.642, P < 0.01) and JAND (F = 8.910, P < 0.01) scores. Overall, the total and dimensional MSQ and JAND scores were negatively correlated before the intervention (r=-0.300 to -0.237; all P < 0.05) but showed no correlation after the intervention.
conclusionThe model-based integrated “nursing ethics–professional teaching” ward-round shows promising effects on intern nurses’ moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making—unlike conventional clinical internships, which enhance only the latter.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.