Exploring the Application of Teaching Models to Foster Creativity in Nursing Students

Abstract

Aim: To identify current knowledge on applying teaching models to foster creativity in nursing students through a systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Background: Nursing requires adaptability while facing the challenge of the holistic patient care approach, expecting nurses to exhibit creative thinking beyond routine practice and predefined protocols. Studies advocate for innovative pedagogical methods to cultivate creativity in nursing, potentially surpassing conventional lectures in effectiveness. During at least two decades, various interrelated teaching models have emerged. Yet, their efficacy varies and requires validation. This study summarized randomized controlled trials comparing teaching models' efficacy in fostering creativity in nursing students. Design: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled pilot studies. In the literature review, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and major scientific websites were screened. Method: Randomized controlled trials of students majoring in nursing (junior, undergraduate and graduate) were included. Studies including multiple treatments at the same time in the same group or comparing variants of the same intervention were excluded. The primary endpoint was the score of creativity. This meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA statement, the PRISMA network meta-analysis extension statement and the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations (PRISMA checklist). WinBugs and Stata software were the primary tools employed for conducting network analyses, standardized pairwise comparisons and sensitivity analyses. Results: Sixty-three studies, including 23 teaching models, were identified. Theory, drill, practice, combine (TDPC) (surface under the cumulative ranking curve $[\text{SUCRA}] = 98.3\%$), Six Thinking Hats ($\text{SUCRA} = 94.8\%$) and 3D printing models ($\text{SUCRA} = 88.4\%$) than other teaching models were associated with a higher probability of scoring higher in creativity. Treatment ranking indicated that TDPC had the highest probability of being the most effective for scoring higher in creativity. However, the comparative efficacy of TDPC, Six Thinking Hats and 3D printing models was similar for scoring in creativity (mean difference 4.70, 95% credible interval -7.99 to 17.31; mean difference 9.18, 95% credible interval -3.54 to 21.72). Neither sensitivity analysis nor metaregression analysis demonstrated any significant heterogeneity in either scenario. Conclusion: As a result of the network meta-analysis, it was identified that TDPC, Six Thinking Hats and 3D printing models seem more adequate than other new-generation teaching models in terms of efficacy while generating potentially improved nursing students' decision-making and problem-solving skills through theoretical learning, skill practice, role-playing and teamwork, fostering creative thinking and innovation. Hence, evidence suggests that these methods can be used as a standard comparator in teaching experiment research to increase the real-world applicability of the results.