Quasi-experimental study evaluates operational skills and self-efficacy in nursing students using a digital platform, suggesting improved learning outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Teacher-centered models in fundamental nursing education face issues including high student-instructor ratios and limited personalized feedback, hindering nursing students' clinical competency development. Peer-assisted learning with digital platforms is a promising solution. However, there remains a lack of research exploring the impact of structured digital platforms designed for peer practice in fundamental nursing education. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured digital platform for reciprocal peer practice in fundamental of nursing education. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study involving 72 s-year undergraduate nursing students. The intervention group utilized reciprocal peer practice with the WeChat Mini Program, which was based on the BOPPPS teaching model (Bridge-in, Objectives, Pre-assessment, Participatory Learning, Post-assessment, Summary), while the control group participated in traditional group training in 3 weeks. Pre- and post-assessments were conducted using validated instruments. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0, employing independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test to compare the effects between the groups. RESULTS: The intervention group showed statistically significant improvements in the operational skills (Z = -3.566, p < 0.001). Additionally, participants in the intervention group showed improvements in the critical thinking (t = 2.386, p = 0.020). While both groups reported gains in self-efficacy, the intervention group exhibited a more pronounced improvement in self-efficacy (t = 3.152, p = 0.002) with reduced variability. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study highlight the potential for integrating digital tools for peer-assisted learning in nursing education, particularly within institutions facing faculty shortages or those seeking to modernize their pedagogical approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: