Claims

A blended learning program did not differ in effectiveness from face-to-face lessons for nurses' fever management learning, but produced higher satisfaction

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? A Korean study comparing a blended learning program to face-to-face lessons found no difference in effectiveness between the two methods, with higher satisfaction in the intervention group. → Vicens-Blanes 2021

Evidence

Vicens-Blanes 2021

Vicens-Blanes, F., Miró-Bonet, R., & Molina-Mula, J. (2021). Analysis of Nurses' and Physicians' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Perceptions toward Fever in Children: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312444

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

One of the quasi-experimental educational-program studies included in the review: a Korean hospital study with 59 nurses comparing a "blended learning program" (traditional classes combined with online learning) to "face-to-face lessons" using pre-test and post-test with an experimental and control group. No effect size is printed for this contrast.

"Based on the findings, there was no difference in effectiveness between the two methods, but the intervention group had higher satisfaction in both methodologies through pre-test and post-test"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.