The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of gamification versus group discussion in evidence-based practice (EBP) education for clinical nurses. It aims to improve learning outcomes and clinical application of EBP.
The main questions it aims to answer are: Does gamification enhance the knowledge acquisition of clinical nurses in EBP? What barriers to evidence-based practice do nurses face? How does gamification affect cognitive load, self-efficacy, and attitudes towards EBP? Researchers will compare gamification to traditional group discussion methods to evaluate their impact on clinical practice. Participants will: Be clinical nurses from Tri-Service General Hospital with varying ranks and experiences. Be randomly assigned to either the gamification group or the control group. Participate in EBP courses based on their clinical rank and experience. Complete pre- and post-intervention assessments and a six-month follow-up. Data collection will measure barriers to evidence-based practice, cognitive load, knowledge acquisition, self-efficacy, attitudes, course satisfaction, and practical application through written reports. Data analysis will use descriptive and inferential statistics to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. This study aims to provide evidence on the most effective teaching methods for EBP, contributing to improved educational strategies and better clinical practices for nurses.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
102
The experimental group will receive a 4-hour gamified instructional design course focused on teaching Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), based on the Octalysis Framework of game elements proposed by Chou (2019). The active comparator group will participate in 4-hour conventional small group discussions focused on teaching Evidence-Based Practice (EBP).
National Defense Medical Center
Taipei, Taiwan
EBP Competence
Measured using the ACE tool developed by Ilic et al. (2014).
Time frame: Baseline, immediately after the workshop, and 6 months follow-up
Self-Efficacy and attitudes
Assessed using the Taipei Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (TEBPQ) (Chen et al., 2014).
Time frame: Baseline, immediately after the workshop, and 6 months follow-up
Participant Satisfaction with EBP Teaching
Measured using a questionnaire designed specifically for this study.
Time frame: immediately after the workshop
practicing applicability
The patient care report was then submitted for a panel of experts' review.
Time frame: 6 months follow-up
Cognitive Load
Assessed using items referenced from Albarqouni et al. (2018).
Time frame: Baseline, and 6 months follow-up
Barriers
Measured using the Chinese Evidence-Based Practice Scales (Wang et al., 2012).
Time frame: Baseline, and 6 months follow-up
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.