Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Maryam Tabatabaeian
- . Masoumeh Kordi 1
- . Salameh Dadgar 2
- . Habibollah Esmaeily 3
- . Talat Khadivzadeh 4
1 Department of Midwifery, Evidence-Based Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences,
2 Ovulation Disorders Research Center, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences,
3 Department of Medical Statistics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences,
4 Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preeclampsia is the most common medical complication in pregnancy; along
with bleeding and infection, it is one of the three causes of death in pregnant women. Most of these
deaths were due to delays in the diagnosis and improper midwifery management and care. On
the other hand, the quality of midwifery education has a profound effect on the proper provision of
services. Therefore, the present study has been done to compare the effect of simulation‑, blended‑,
and lecture‑based education on simulated midwife performance in the management of preeclampsia
and eclampsia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This three‑group clinical trial study was performed on 90 midwives
of selected hospitals in Mashhad in 2016. Midwives were divided into three groups of simulation‑,
blended‑, and lecture‑based education using the random number table. The simulation group was
trained for 6 h at the Center for Clinical Skills, the blended group was trained for 4 h by lecture, and
6 weeks through the educational website, and the lecture group was trained for 6 h through lecture.
An objective structured clinical test was performed before and 2 weeks after the intervention. Data
were analyzed using SPSS Version 16 software and descriptive statistics, paired t‑test, one‑way
ANOVA, and Wilcoxon and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Significance level was considered to be P < 0.05
in all cases.
RESULTS: The mean score of midwives’ performance was not statistically significant before education
in all three groups (P < 0.05). The mean score of midwives’ performance was significantly increased
in all three groups 2 weeks after education (P < 0.001), and the results of intergroup comparison
showed that the mean score of performance in the simulation group was significantly higher than the
blended group and the lecture group (P < 0.001), and it was higher in the blended group compared
to the lecture group (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Education increased the midwives’ simulated performance in preeclampsia and
eclampsia. The performance of the management of preeclampsia and eclampsia in the simulation
educational group is more than that of the blended and lecture groups, so we can use the simulation
education which is a self‑centered method.
Keywords
Spong CY. Williams Obstetrics. 24th ed. Tehran Golban Medical
Publisher; 2014.
2. Poole JH. Physiological Markers for Preeclampsia. Carolina:
Univesity of South Carolina; 1999.
3. Christian A, Krumwiede N. Simulation enhances self‑efficacy in
the management of preeclampsia and eclampsia in obstetrical
staff nurses. Clin Simul Nurs 2013;9:e369‑77.
4. Reyes LM, García RG, Ruiz SL, Camacho PA, Ospina MB,
Aroca G. Risk factors for preeclampsia in women from Colombia:
A case‑control study. PLoS One 2012;7:e41622.
5. Safari M, Yazdanpanah B. Prevalence of preeclampsia and fetal
and maternal complications in women referred to Imam Sajjad
Hospital of Yasuj. Univ Med Sci 2003;2:53‑47.
6. World Health Organization. 2003 Global Burden Hypertensive
Disorders of Pregnancy in the Year 2000. Available from: http://
www. who. int/healthinfo/statistics/bod_hypertensivedisorder
sofpregnancy. pdf.[Last retrieved on 2012 Jun 13].
7. Fallon A, Engel C. Midwife’s role in caring for women with
hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Pract Midwife. 2008;
11(9):32‑7.
8. Shirazi M, Lotfi M. The ehranent of post partum haemorrhage.
J Obstet Gynecol 2010;5:14‑29.
9. Mirmolaei ST, Shabani H, Babaei GH, Abdehagh Z. Comparison
of critical thinking among first and last trimester baccalaureate
midwifery students. Hayat J 2004;10:70‑77.
10. Granmayeh M, Rezaepoor A, Haghani H, Akhoondzadeh E. The
impact of education on the use of non‑pharmacological methods
of pain relief in labor. J Fac Nurs Midwifery Tehran Univ Med
Sci (Hayat) 2006;12:14‑21.
11. Koleini N, Farshidfar F, Shams B, Salehi M. Problem based
learning or lecture, a new method of teaching biology to first year
medical students: An experience. Iran J Med Educ 2003;3:57‑63.
12. Shabani H. Educational and breeding skills (methods and
techniques of teaching). 24th edition. Tehran: SAMT; 2013.
13. Dadgostarnia M, Vafamehr V. Comparing the effectiveness of
two educational approaches of “electronic learning and training
in small groups” and “training only in small groups” in teaching
physical examination. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2010,
10(1):11‑18.
14. Healy DG, Fleming FJ, Gilhooley D, Felle P, Wood AE, Gorey T,
et al. Electronic learning can facilitate student performance in
undergraduate surgical education: A prospective observational
study. BMC Med Educ 2005;5:23.
15. Taekman JM, Hobbs G, Barbar L, Phillips‑Bute BG, Wright MC,
Newman MF, et al. Preliminary report on the use of high fidelity
simulation in the training of study coordinators conducting a
clinical research protocol. Anesth Analg 2004;99:521‑7.
16. Gordon JA, Shaffer DW, Raemer DB, Pawlowski J, Hurford WE,
Cooper JB. A randomized controlled trial of simulation‑based
teaching versus traditional instruction in medicine: A pilot study
among clinical medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory
Pract 2006;11:33‑9.
17. Johnson MP, Hickey KT, Scopa‑Goldman J, Andrews T, Boerem P,
CovecM, et al. Manikin versus web‑based simulation for advanced
practice nursing students. Clin Simul Nurs 2014;10:e317‑23.
18. Fisher N, Bernstein PS, Satin A, Pardanani S, Heo H, Merkatz IR,
et al. Resident training for eclampsia and magnesium toxicity
management: Simulation or traditional lecture? Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2010;203:379.e1‑5.
19. Durham CF, Alden KR. Patient Safety and Quality: An
Evidence‑Based Handbook for Nurses. Available from: http://
www. ahrq. gov/professionals/clinicians‑providers/resources/
nursing/resources/nurseshdbk/nurseshdbk. pdf.[Last accessed
on 2008 Apr 08].
20. Johnson PG, Fullerton JT. Midwifery education models.
A contemporary review. J Nurse Midwifery 1998;43:351‑7.
21. Ajam AA. Preparation of self‑directed learning and critical
thinking in interaction students blended learning environment.
Iran J Med Educ 2015:15:215‑26.
22. Bani Hashim SK, Rezaei J, Badali M, Dana A. Effects of Blended
Learning on Student Creativity, Initiative and Creativity in
Human Science; 2014. p. 113.
23. Derntl M, Motschnig‑Pitrik R. The role of structure, patterns, and
people in blended learning. Internet Higher Educ 2005;8:111‑30.
24. Zolfaghari M, Negharandeh R, Ahmadi F. The evaluation of a
blended e‑learning program for nursing and midwifery students
in Tehran University of medical sciences. Iranian Journal of
Medical Education 2011, 10(4): 398‑409.
25. Taylor F, Nelson E, Delfino K, Han H. A blended approach to
learning in an obstetrics and gynecology residency program:
Proof of concept. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular
Development 2015:2:53–62.
26. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E‑learning in
medical education. Acad Med 2006;81:207‑12.
27. McCutcheon K, Lohan M, Traynor M, Martin D. A systematic
review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs.
Face‑to‑face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse
education. J Adv Nurs 2015;71:255‑70.
28. Khooshab H, Bagheri SH, Sabzavari S, Noohi E. Comparison of the
effect of mannequin simulation training methods and traditional,
on the students’ knowledge and performance medical emergency
medicine course in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Med Educ
Dev Dev Center 2016;13:298‑306.
29. Bello S, Ibi MB, Bukar IB. Effect of simulation techniques and
lecture method on students’ academic performance in Mafoni
day secondary school Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria. J Educ
Pract 2016;7:54‑8.
30. Heidari T, Kariman N, Heidari Z, Amiri Farahani L. Comparison
effect of feedback lecture and conventional lecture method on
learning and quality of teaching. Arak Med Univ J 2010;12:34‑43.
31. Lewis CB, Veale BL. Patient simulation as an active learning tool
in medical education. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2010;41:196‑200.
32. Amir‑Alavi S, Dadgaran I, Aghajanzadeh M, Alavi A, Dehghan A,
Nemati M, Ghazanfar‑Tehran S. Comparison of the effectiveness
of web based bronchoscopy simulator versus traditional
education on knowledge of tracheobronchial anatomy of
anesthesia residents. J Res Med Educ 2016;8:52‑60.
33. Liaw SY, Chan SW, Chen FG, Hooi SC, Siau C. Comparison of
virtual patient simulation with mannequin‑based simulation
for improving clinical performances in assessing and managing
clinical deterioration: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet
Res 2014;16:e214.
34. Fakari FR, Kordi M, Mazloom SR, Khadivzadeh T, Tara M,
Akhlaghi F. Comparing the effect of traditional, web based and
simulation training on midwifery students’ clinical competence
in postpartum hemorrhage management. J Mazandaran Univ
Med Sci 2015;25:65‑77.
35. Anboohi SZ, Mofrad M, Pazargadi M. The effect of combined
clinical learning model on the level of understanding and
performance of nursing students in clinical internship. J Shahid Beheshti Nurs Midwifery Fac 2008;60:5‑14.
36. Bahadorani M, Yousefy A, Changiz T. The effectiveness of three
methods of teaching medline to medical students: Online, face
to face and combined educational methods. Iran J Med Educ
2006;6:35‑42.
37. Manavifar L, Jamali J. Benefits and barriers of virtual presence
blended learning lessons from the perspective of practical
hematology laboratory science students of Mashhad University
of Medical Sciences in 1390. Iran J Med Educ Benefits and barriers
of virtual presence blended learning lessons from the perspective
of practical hematology Laboratory science students of Mashhad
University of Medical Sciences in 1390;12:619‑28.
38. Tiffen J, Corbridge S, Cuasay ShenB, Robinson P. Patient simulator
for teaching heart and lung assessment skills to advanced practice
nursing students. Clin Simul Nurs 2011;7:e91‑7.
39. Heidarzadeh A, Mirzaei T, Forouzi AM. A comparison between
the effects of simulation videos and lectures on midwifery
students’ knowledge and self‑confidence. Zanjan Med Educ Dev
Mag 2015;8:1‑8.
40. Heidarzadeh A, Mirzaei T, Forouzi AM. Comparing the effects
of heart and lung examination using simulation mannequin with
lectures on midwifery students’ knowledge and confidence.
J Nurs Educ 2015;4:82‑9.
41. Yom YH. Blended of internet‑based learning and traditional
face‑to‑face learning in an RN‑BSN course in Korea. Comput
Inform Nurs 2004;22:145‑52.
)