Evidence-Based PracticeNCT04483713
Evidence-Based Practice: Proposed Application of Facilitating Tools for Clinical Nurses
A study testing Educational Workshop and Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools in people with Evidence-Based Practice, run by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein at 1 site in Brazil.
Trial summary
Randomized study of educational intervention, comparative and prospective about Evidence Based Practice (EBP) and its application by clinical nurses in the implementation of EBP projects in search of best practice in nursing processes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Evidence-Based Practice
- What is being tested?
- Educational Workshop and Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 29 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBrazil
- Study dates
- 13 Dec 2020to 30 Oct 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinical nurse with a minimum of two years of training in nursing undergraduate
- Self-referred intermediate English for reading
Who cannot join
- -Have previously participated in an EBP project, EBP council or research project, or have a master's or doctor's degree.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Randomized study of educational intervention, comparative and prospective about Evidence Based Practice (EBP) and its application by clinical nurses in the implementation of EBP projects in search of best practice in nursing processes.
Read the detailed description
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) has become an important issue in nursing. It is considered a process consisting of sequential steps. Multiple barriers are found, among them, time restriction, lack of personal motivation, professional resistance to research and inadequate knowledge. The proposal of this study is to provide Brazilian clinical nurses with tools to be used as a guide, with a structured process in stages as a facilitator of the implementation of EBP projects in search of best practice in nursing processes, for this the investigators will verify the adequacy of authorized translation of the Portuguese version of the Johns Hopkins Center for Evidence-Based Practice guide tools and whether these tools are facilitators in structuring and describing an EBP project from the perspective of the clinical nurse, in addition to verifying whether the EBP project met the requirements of preparation from the perspective of the researcher.
- Conditions
- Evidence-Based Practice
- Being tested
- Educational Workshop, Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools
- Keywords
- Evidence-Based Practice, Evidence-Based Nursing, Education, Nursing
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Educational WorkshopBehavioural
The workshop proposes a review of all stages of EBP which includes approaches to clinical care based on science and the quality of evidence, with the ultimate goal of promoting safe and quality care.
The workshops comprise one for each group with a total workload of six (6) hours divided into two days, lasting three hours each day. The first day will be a theoretical approach and the second day a practical approach.
The workshops with theoretical content and practical classes will be held in rooms of Albert Einstein Hospital.
All participants of both educational strategies will answer the same questionnaires.
Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide ToolsBehavioural
In addition to the workshop. It will follow the same molds as the case of group "Educational Workshop" plus the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice guide tools since the beginning of this practical class, when the participant will receive a description of a problem as a basis for elaborating their clinical question, and thus, move on to the next stage.
The tools will be offered in the case of this group: question development, evidence level and quality guide, research evidence assessment tool, individual evidence tool, evidence synthesis and recommendation tool, action planning tool and tool dissemination.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Educational Workshop | Active comparator | Will receive theoretical and practical training in EBP through a workshop in a structured model with themes related to the introduction to EBP, with the final proposal of a practical class that aims to structure and describe an individual case through an exercise formulated to go through the phases of a project of EBP, to base this exercise we will use a finished and consolidated project, this will be used as a template of the exercise, the description of this exercise is in the programmatic content. Receives: Behavioral: Educational Workshop |
| Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools | Active comparator | Will receive the same training as group "Educational Workshop", plus the presentation and availability of the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice guide tools to be used in the practice class for the structuring and individual description of the EBP exercise case. The same theme of the case will be used in both groups. Receives: Behavioral: Educational Workshop; Behavioral: Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Questionnaire to check the suitability of the authorized translation of the portuguese language version of the johns hopkins evidence-based practice guide tools.
The questionnaire have closed-ended question about the intelligibility of translation for experts, with the possibility of answering yes or no, and an open field for suggestions for changes. In case of inadequacy (which we define as less than four yes answers for the tools), we will make the changes cited by the experts and submit the changed tools to a further expert evaluation.
Measured: Change from Baseline suitability of the translation of the portuguese language version of the johns hopkins PBE guide tools at immediate post this intervention, an average of 3 months.
Questionnaire for the evaluation of the structuring process and description of an evidence-based practice project, from the perspective of the clinical nurse.
The instrument has seven questions and one open for comments. The closed questions are related to the description of a clinical question with answer possibilities (very slow; slow; fast; very fast), ease in searching for evidence (challenging; difficult; easy; very easy), understanding of scientific articles (not understandable; partially understandable; understandable; totally understandable), ease in summarizing and classifying the levels of evidence and ease in describing the application of evidence with (challenging; difficult; easy; very easy), elaborating an action plan for disseminating the evidence, in addition to the ease of going through all the phases of a PBE project in relation to the material offered during the workshop (with or without Johns Hopkins tools) with answer possibilities (not helpful; partially helpful; helpful; very helpful), the latter responses are associated with greater ease in the process of structuring and describing an evidence-based practice project.
Measured: Change from Baseline evaluation of the structuring process and description of an evidence-based practice project, from the perspective of the clinical nurse, at immediate post intervention, through study completion, an average 1 year.
Compliance verification questionnaire in the exercise of preparing a PBE project, from the researcher's perspective.
This tool have five closed questions to verify compliance with the basic requirements and key elements of an EBP project. The closed questions are related to the description of a clinical question with answer possibilities (yes; no), about survey of bibliographic articles with answer possibilities (Sufficient; Partially sufficient; Insufficient), about the classification of evidence according to the level of quality, elaboration of synthesis of the findings relating to the levels of evidence and ability to develop a dissemination plan for the implementation of the PBE project , with answer possibilities ( Yes; Partially; No). The latter answers are associated with a poor conformity in the exercise of structuring and describing an evidence-based practice project from the researcher's perspective.
Measured: Change from Baseline Compliance verification in the exercise of preparing a PBE project, from the researcher's perspective, at immediate post intervention, through study completion, an average 1 year.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ)
It is a self-applicable instrument, considered important for assessing the use, opinions and knowledge of nurses about this practice. The instrument assesses attitudes, knowledge and implementation of PBE, uses a Likert-type scale with a score from one, just like never to seven equal to often, in three domains: practice, attitudes and knowledge related to PBE, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward EBP.
Measured: Change from de Baseline Evidence-Based Practice at immediate post intervention, through study completion, an average 1 year.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jul 2020
- Study start13 Dec 2020
- Primary completion30 Sep 2021
- Study completion30 Oct 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (26)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Evidence-Based PracticeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 29 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Eliseth R Leão, PhD, Principal investigator, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein - Research Institute
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04483713
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EBP nursing Brazil
- Status last verified
- Feb 2021
- First submitted
- 6 Jul 2020
- Last updated
- 26 Sep 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Pereira F, Salvi M, Verloo H. Beliefs, Knowledge, Implementation, and Integration of Evidence-Based Practice Among Primary Health Care Providers: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Aug 1;6(8):e148. doi: 10.2196/resprot.7727.
PubMed 28765102Friesen-Storms JH, Moser A, van der Loo S, Beurskens AJ, Bours GJ. Systematic implementation of evidence-based practice in a clinical nursing setting: a participatory action research project. J Clin Nurs. 2015 Jan;24(1-2):57-68. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12697. Epub 2014 Sep 25.
PubMed 25258116Danski MTR OG, Pedrolo E, Lind J, Johann D. A Importância da Prática Baseada em Evidências nos Processos de Trabalho do Enfermeiro. Cienc Cuid Saude 2017 Abr-Jun; 16(2). 2017
Schneider LR, Pereira RPG, Ferraz L. A prática baseada em evidência no contexto da Atenção Primária à Saúde. Saúde debate. 2018;42(118):594-605
Warren JI, McLaughlin M, Bardsley J, Eich J, Esche CA, Kropkowski L, Risch S. The Strengths and Challenges of Implementing EBP in Healthcare Systems. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Feb;13(1):15-24. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12149.
PubMed 26873372Pintz C, Zhou QP, McLaughlin MK, Kelly KP, Guzzetta CE. National Study of Nursing Research Characteristics at Magnet(R)-Designated Hospitals. J Nurs Adm. 2018 May;48(5):247-258. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000609.
PubMed 29629911Wilson M, Sleutel M, Newcomb P, Behan D, Walsh J, Wells JN, Baldwin KM. Empowering nurses with evidence-based practice environments: surveying Magnet(R), Pathway to Excellence(R), and non-magnet facilities in one healthcare system. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015 Feb;12(1):12-21. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12077. Epub 2015 Jan 16.
PubMed 25598144Magnet Recognition Program [homepage na internet]. ANCC Magnet Recognition Program® [acesso em 15/09/2019]. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/magnet/.
Leao ER, Farah OG, Reis EA, Barros CG, Mizoi CS. Academic profile, beliefs, and self-efficacy in research of clinical nurses: implications for the Nursing Research Program in a Magnet Journey hospital. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2013 Dec;11(4):507-13. doi: 10.1590/s1679-45082013000400018.
PubMed 24488393Camargo FC IH, Pereira GA, Souza RM, Garcia LAA, Monteiro DAT et al. . Estratégias para o ensino da prática baseada em evidências na formação de enfermeiros: Revisão Intergrativa. REFACS (online) 2018; 6(Supl 1):363-374.
Camargo FC PG, Iwamoto HH, Lorena LT, Goulart MB, Contim B. Oficinas para o desenvolvimento da prática baseada em evidências entre lideranças de enfermagem: estudo piloto. Rev Eletr Enf [Internet]. 2017;19:a50
Ashktorab T, Pashaeypoor S, Rassouli M, Alavi-Majd H. Nursing Students' Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice and Its Related Factors. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2015 Dec;4(4):e23047. doi: 10.17795/nmsjournal23047. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
PubMed 26835462Kim JS, Gu MO, Chang H. Effects of an evidence-based practice education program using multifaceted interventions: a quasi-experimental study with undergraduate nursing students. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Mar 4;19(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1501-6.
PubMed 30832639Camargo FC, Iwamoto HH, Galvao CM, Pereira GA, Andrade RB, Masso GC. Competences and Barriers for the Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing: an integrative review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018 Jul-Aug;71(4):2030-2038. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2016-0617. English, Portuguese.
PubMed 30156693Schaffer MA, Sandau KE, Diedrick L. Evidence-based practice models for organizational change: overview and practical applications. J Adv Nurs. 2013 May;69(5):1197-209. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06122.x. Epub 2012 Aug 9.
PubMed 22882410
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Sep 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evidence-Based Practice: Proposed Application of Facilitating Tools for Clinical Nurses
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04483713
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EBP nursing Brazil
- Conditions
- Evidence-Based Practice
- Keywords
- Evidence-Based Practice, Evidence-Based Nursing, Education, Nursing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 29 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Israelita Albert EinsteinUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 13 Dec 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Oct 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Jul 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Randomized study of educational intervention, comparative and prospective about Evidence Based Practice (EBP) and its application by clinical nurses in the implementation of EBP projects in search of best practice in nursing processes.
Detailed description
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) has become an important issue in nursing. It is considered a process consisting of sequential steps. Multiple barriers are found, among them, time restriction, lack of personal motivation, professional resistance to research and inadequate knowledge. The proposal of this study is to provide Brazilian clinical nurses with tools to be used as a guide, with a structured process in stages as a facilitator of the implementation of EBP projects in search of best practice in nursing processes, for this the investigators will verify the adequacy of authorized translation of the Portuguese version of the Johns Hopkins Center for Evidence-Based Practice guide tools and whether these tools are facilitators in structuring and describing an EBP project from the perspective of the clinical nurse, in addition to verifying whether the EBP project met the requirements of preparation from the perspective of the researcher.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Educational Workshop | Active comparator | Behavioral: Educational WorkshopWill receive theoretical and practical training in EBP through a workshop in a structured model with themes related to the introduction to EBP, with the final proposal of a practical class that aims to structure and describe an individual case through an exercise formulated to go through the phases of a project of EBP, to base this exercise we will use a finished and consolidated project, this will be used as a template of the exercise, the description of this exercise is in the programmatic content. |
| Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools | Active comparator | Behavioral: Educational Workshop, Behavioral: Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide ToolsWill receive the same training as group "Educational Workshop", plus the presentation and availability of the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice guide tools to be used in the practice class for the structuring and individual description of the EBP exercise case. The same theme of the case will be used in both groups. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Clinical nurse with a minimum of two years of training in nursing undergraduate
- Self-referred intermediate English for reading
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -Have previously participated in an EBP project, EBP council or research project, or have a master's or doctor's degree.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Educational WorkshopThe workshop proposes a review of all stages of EBP which includes approaches to clinical care based on science and the quality of evidence, with the ultimate goal of promoting safe and quality care. The workshops comprise one for each group with a total workload of six (6) hours divided into two days, lasting three hours each day. The first day will be a theoretical approach and the second day a practical approach. The workshops with theoretical content and practical classes will be held in rooms of Albert Einstein Hospital. All participants of both educational strategies will answer the same questionnaires. | Behavioural | Educational Workshop, Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools |
| Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide ToolsIn addition to the workshop. It will follow the same molds as the case of group "Educational Workshop" plus the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice guide tools since the beginning of this practical class, when the participant will receive a description of a problem as a basis for elaborating their clinical question, and thus, move on to the next stage. The tools will be offered in the case of this group: question development, evidence level and quality guide, research evidence assessment tool, individual evidence tool, evidence synthesis and recommendation tool, action planning tool and tool dissemination. | Behavioural | Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools |
Primary outcome
Questionnaire to check the suitability of the authorized translation of the portuguese language version of the johns hopkins evidence-based practice guide tools.
Time frame: Change from Baseline suitability of the translation of the portuguese language version of the johns hopkins PBE guide tools at immediate post this intervention, an average of 3 months.
The questionnaire have closed-ended question about the intelligibility of translation for experts, with the possibility of answering yes or no, and an open field for suggestions for changes. In case of inadequacy (which we define as less than four yes answers for the tools), we will make the changes cited by the experts and submit the changed tools to a further expert evaluation.
Questionnaire for the evaluation of the structuring process and description of an evidence-based practice project, from the perspective of the clinical nurse.
Time frame: Change from Baseline evaluation of the structuring process and description of an evidence-based practice project, from the perspective of the clinical nurse, at immediate post intervention, through study completion, an average 1 year.
The instrument has seven questions and one open for comments. The closed questions are related to the description of a clinical question with answer possibilities (very slow; slow; fast; very fast), ease in searching for evidence (challenging; difficult; easy; very easy), understanding of scientific articles (not understandable; partially understandable; understandable; totally understandable), ease in summarizing and classifying the levels of evidence and ease in describing the application of evidence with (challenging; difficult; easy; very easy), elaborating an action plan for disseminating the evidence, in addition to the ease of going through all the phases of a PBE project in relation to the material offered during the workshop (with or without Johns Hopkins tools) with answer possibilities (not helpful; partially helpful; helpful; very helpful), the latter responses are associated with greater ease in the process of structuring and describing an evidence-based practice project.
Compliance verification questionnaire in the exercise of preparing a PBE project, from the researcher's perspective.
Time frame: Change from Baseline Compliance verification in the exercise of preparing a PBE project, from the researcher's perspective, at immediate post intervention, through study completion, an average 1 year.
This tool have five closed questions to verify compliance with the basic requirements and key elements of an EBP project. The closed questions are related to the description of a clinical question with answer possibilities (yes; no), about survey of bibliographic articles with answer possibilities (Sufficient; Partially sufficient; Insufficient), about the classification of evidence according to the level of quality, elaboration of synthesis of the findings relating to the levels of evidence and ability to develop a dissemination plan for the implementation of the PBE project , with answer possibilities ( Yes; Partially; No). The latter answers are associated with a poor conformity in the exercise of structuring and describing an evidence-based practice project from the researcher's perspective.
1 secondary outcome
Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ)
Time frame: Change from de Baseline Evidence-Based Practice at immediate post intervention, through study completion, an average 1 year.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Sep 2023.
- Background: PubMed 28765102Pereira F, Salvi M, Verloo H. Beliefs, Knowledge, Implementation, and Integration of Evidence-Based Practice Among Primary Health Care Providers: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Aug 1;6(8):e148. doi: 10.2196/resprot.7727.
- Background: PubMed 25258116Friesen-Storms JH, Moser A, van der Loo S, Beurskens AJ, Bours GJ. Systematic implementation of evidence-based practice in a clinical nursing setting: a participatory action research project. J Clin Nurs. 2015 Jan;24(1-2):57-68. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12697. Epub 2014 Sep 25.
- BackgroundDanski MTR OG, Pedrolo E, Lind J, Johann D. A Importância da Prática Baseada em Evidências nos Processos de Trabalho do Enfermeiro. Cienc Cuid Saude 2017 Abr-Jun; 16(2). 2017
- BackgroundSchneider LR, Pereira RPG, Ferraz L. A prática baseada em evidência no contexto da Atenção Primária à Saúde. Saúde debate. 2018;42(118):594-605
- Background: PubMed 26873372Warren JI, McLaughlin M, Bardsley J, Eich J, Esche CA, Kropkowski L, Risch S. The Strengths and Challenges of Implementing EBP in Healthcare Systems. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Feb;13(1):15-24. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12149.
- Background: PubMed 29629911Pintz C, Zhou QP, McLaughlin MK, Kelly KP, Guzzetta CE. National Study of Nursing Research Characteristics at Magnet(R)-Designated Hospitals. J Nurs Adm. 2018 May;48(5):247-258. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000609.
- Background: PubMed 25598144Wilson M, Sleutel M, Newcomb P, Behan D, Walsh J, Wells JN, Baldwin KM. Empowering nurses with evidence-based practice environments: surveying Magnet(R), Pathway to Excellence(R), and non-magnet facilities in one healthcare system. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015 Feb;12(1):12-21. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12077. Epub 2015 Jan 16.
- BackgroundMagnet Recognition Program [homepage na internet]. ANCC Magnet Recognition Program® [acesso em 15/09/2019]. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/magnet/.
- Background: PubMed 24488393Leao ER, Farah OG, Reis EA, Barros CG, Mizoi CS. Academic profile, beliefs, and self-efficacy in research of clinical nurses: implications for the Nursing Research Program in a Magnet Journey hospital. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2013 Dec;11(4):507-13. doi: 10.1590/s1679-45082013000400018.
- BackgroundCamargo FC IH, Pereira GA, Souza RM, Garcia LAA, Monteiro DAT et al. . Estratégias para o ensino da prática baseada em evidências na formação de enfermeiros: Revisão Intergrativa. REFACS (online) 2018; 6(Supl 1):363-374.
- BackgroundCamargo FC PG, Iwamoto HH, Lorena LT, Goulart MB, Contim B. Oficinas para o desenvolvimento da prática baseada em evidências entre lideranças de enfermagem: estudo piloto. Rev Eletr Enf [Internet]. 2017;19:a50
- Background: PubMed 26835462Ashktorab T, Pashaeypoor S, Rassouli M, Alavi-Majd H. Nursing Students' Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice and Its Related Factors. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2015 Dec;4(4):e23047. doi: 10.17795/nmsjournal23047. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
Related trials for Evidence-Based Practice
Active, not recruiting
Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work Education
Evidence-Based Practice
Recruiting
A Multi-Level Strategy for De-implementing Mammography Overuse Among Older Women
Mammography, Medical Overuse
Not yet recruiting
Network-Based Support to Help Community Coalition Members Choose and Use Strategies to Improve Child Health
Childhood Obesity, Evidence-Based Practice
Not yet recruiting
PROstate Cancer Risk Calculator for ACTionable Clinical Decision-making in Nigeria
Prostate Cancer, Risk Assessment
Not yet recruiting
THE EFFECT OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON NURSING STUDENTS' NURSING PROCESS EDUCATION
Education, Nursing, Students, Nursing
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Eliseth R Leão, PhD principal investigator
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein - Research Institute
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Educational Workshop and Educational Workshop plus J. H. N. EBP Guide Tools in people with Evidence-Based Practice, run by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein at 1 site in Brazil.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Sep 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Brazil. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Questionnaire to check the suitability of the authorized translation of the portuguese language version of the johns hopkins evidence-based practice guide tools. (time frame: Change from Baseline suitability of the translation of the portuguese language version of the johns hopkins PBE guide tools at immediate post this intervention, an average of 3 months.). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04483713, which also lists 26 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Sep 2023; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.