Cervical dilation assessment in simulators compared to a visual tool: A randomized study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.6102.3883%20

Keywords:

Cervix Uteri; Simulation Training; Teaching; Labor, Obstetric; Obstetric Nursing; Obstetrics

Abstract

Objective: to verify the correct assessment rate when using direct visual comparison in the cervical dilation measures in hard-consistency cervix simulation models. Method: an open-label and randomized study conducted with 63 Obstetrics students that were designated either to use direct visual comparison in a dilation guide or not. The students estimated cervical dilation blindly in simulators with different dilations. The primary outcome was the correct assessment rate. Results: the students performed 141 tests. A higher correct assessment rate was found in the Experimental Group than in the Control Group (47.3% versus 27.2%; p<0.001; Odds Ratio = 2.41; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.62-3.58). Conclusion: the direct visual comparison increased precision of the cervical dilation assessment in cervix simulation models, with the possibility of being beneficial in laboratory training. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials No. U1111-1210-2389.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-03-27

Issue

Vol. 31 (2023)

Section

Original Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.
Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
 Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.

 

How to Cite

Cervical dilation assessment in simulators compared to a visual tool: A randomized study. (2023). Revista Latino-Americana De Enfermagem, 31, e3883. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.6102.3883