Conectar
To explore and compare the didactic approaches to practical skills learning at simulation centres in Scandinavian universities and university colleges.
Academic simulation centres are an important arena for learning practical nursing skills which are essential to ensure competent performance regarding patient safety and quality of care. Knowledge of didactic approaches to enhance learning is essential in promoting the provision and retention of students' practical nursing skills. However, research on didactical approaches to practical nursing skills learning is lacking.
A qualitative comparative design was used.
During November and December 2019, interviews were conducted with a total of 37 simulation centre directors or assistant directors, each of whom possessed in-depth knowledge of practical skills in teaching and learning. They represented bachelor nursing education in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A qualitative deductive content analysis was conducted.
The results revealed all five predetermined didactical components derived from the didactical relationship model. Twenty-two corresponding categories that described a variation in didactic approaches to practical skills learning in Scandinavian nursing simulation centres were identified. The didactical components of Learning process revealed mostly similarities, Setting mostly differences and Assessment showed only differences in didactic approaches.
Although various didactic approaches were described across the countries, no common approach was found. Nursing educational institutions are encouraged to cooperate in developing a shared understanding of how didactic approaches can enhance practical skills learning.
Cross-country comparisons of practical nursing skills learning in Scandinavian countries highlight the importance of educator awareness concerning the impact diverse didactic approaches may have on competent performance in nursing education. Competent performance is pivotal for ensuring patient safety and the provision of high-quality care.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
This study followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research reporting guidelines.
This study aims to assess risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection by combined design; first comparing positive cases to negative controls as determined by PCR testing and then comparing these two groups to an additional prepandemic population control group.
Test-negative design (TND), multicentre case–control study with additional population controls in South-Eastern Norway.
Adults who underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing between February and December 2020. PCR-positive cases, PCR-negative controls and additional age-matched population controls.
The associations between various risk factors based on self- reported questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing PCR-positive cases and PCR-negative controls. Using subgroup analysis, the risk factors for both PCR-positive and PCR-negative participants were compared with a population control group.
In total, 400 PCR-positive cases, 719 PCR-negative controls and 14 509 population controls were included. Male sex was associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection only in the TND study (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6), but not when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9. to 1.5). Some factors were positively (asthma, wood heating) or negatively (hypertension) associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls, but lacked convincing association in the TND study. Smoking was negatively associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in both analyses (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8 and OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8).
Male sex was a possible risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection only in the TND study, whereas smoking was negatively associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in both the TND study and when using population controls. Several factors were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls, but not in the TND study, highlighting the strength of combining case–control study designs during the pandemic.
FreshRSS 