ArticleNursing open2026
Evaluating Standardised Training Effectiveness for Trainee Nurses and Clinical Instructors in a Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital: A Mixed-Methods Study in Henan, China.
Article in Nursing open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a standardised training programme and compare the competency ratings between trainee nurses and clinical instructors in a national Third-Level Grade A traditional Chinese medicine hospital in Henan Province, China.
designThis study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design.
methodsTwo sets of study participants were included: (1) trainee nurses-130 eligible trainee nurses employed in 2018 (who completed a 2-year standardised training programme) were invited to complete an online questionnaire, with 89 valid responses; (2) clinical instructors-80 clinical instructors (trainers in the hospital) were fully enrolled to complete the questionnaire. Additionally, 15 trainee nurses were randomly selected for face-to-face interviews to collect qualitative data.
resultsQuantitative data show that trainee nurses and clinical instructors evaluated training objectives, clinical instructors and training schedule as 'very effective'. Trainee nurses' evaluation of training content was 'effective', whereas clinical instructors' evaluation of training content was 'very effective'. The self-evaluation of trainee nurses and trainee nurses' performance as rated by clinical instructors on clinical practice, nursing procedure, specialised nursing, health teaching and case study were all within the 'master level'. Based on the t-test results, there was a significant difference between the self-rating of the trainee nurses and the rated evaluation of the clinical instructors (p < 0.05). Qualitative interview data further explained this discrepancy: trainees' overconfidence may stem from unclear expectation standards and lack of timely feedback, and instructors' lower ratings were influenced by heavy workloads limiting observation time. Additionally, qualitative findings identified systemic issues (e.g., rotation scheduling, ressure in taking the exam) that quantitative data alone could not reveal, and these issues indirectly affect competency alignment.
conclusionStandardised training is an effective way to instruct trainee nurses. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study has no patient or public contribution.
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.