Background: Feedback delivery is deemed as a key element during a students' clinical education. It keeps students on track to meet their goal and increase students' motivation and confidence. 

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of feedback delivery in oral versus written feedback delivery to nursing students in clinical education.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2012 in the city of Bojnurd in Iran. Using purposive sampling, last semester’s nursing students (n=44) had been randomly assigned to oral and written feedback delivery groups. Three Instructors received orientation and training on methods of feedback delivery before study initiation. Then, they gave necessary oral and written feedback to the students. Clinical settings of the study included coronary care, surgical, and neonatal units of hospitals. Data collection tools were quality of feedback delivery, students' satisfaction questionnaire and students' reactions checklist. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 11.5 with chi-square test and the t-test.

Results: Most of the students (52%, n=23) were male. There were no significant differences between the scores of quality of oral and written feedback delivery (p>0.05). The study did not show a difference of satisfaction level between the oral and written feedback groups. The relationship between students' reactions and feedback type at the confidence level of 90% was significant, so that students who received oral feedback showed more severe reactions as compared to the written feedback group.

Conclusion: According to the results, the type of feedback is not an important factor in clinical education quality and satisfaction level. They may achieve a better outcome by focusing on the other aspects of quality of feedback delivery rather than feedback type.

Trial registration: The trial was registered at the Iranian Registration Center for Clinical Trials with the Irct id: (IRCT: 201111128076N1).

Funding: North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences (permission no. 89/p/209).


Keywords: Feedback; Clinical; Education; Teaching; Methods
» HTML Fulltext    » PDF Fulltext    » doi: 10.19082/5008

Current Issue

July-September 2019 (Volume 11, Issue 3)


Previous Issue

In the second issue of the journal Electronic Physician for 2019, we have several papers including four Randomized Controlled Trials, a model development study, a case report, an editorial, a letter to editor (LTE), and several original research including two studies with qualitative approach. Authors of this issue are from nine countries: Iran, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, India, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Jordan. Read more...


The 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) is to be held on June 2-5, 2019 in Hong Kong.

The WCRI is the largest and most significant international conference on research integrity. Since the first conference in Lisbon in 2007, it has given researchers, teachers, funding agencies, government officials, journal editors, senior administrators, and research students opportunities to share experiences and to discuss and promote integrity in research. Read more:


TDR Clinical Research and Development Fellowships

Call for applications

Deadline for submission: 7 March 2019, 16:00 (GMT)

TDR provides fellowships for early- to mid-career researchers and clinical trial staff (e.g. clinicians, pharmacists, medical statisticians, data managers, other health researchers) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to learn how to conduct clinical trials. Read more:

Meta-Analysis Workshops in New York, USA, and London, UK, in April and May 2019

Don't miss this exceptional opportunity to learn how to perform and report a Meta-analysis correctly. Two Meta-analysis workshops are organized in April and May 2019 by Dr. Michael Borenstein in New York, USA (April 08-10, 2019) and London, UK (May 27-29).

About the Instructor

Dr. Michael Borenstein, one of the authors of Introduction to Meta-Analysis, is widely recognized for his ability to make statistical concepts accessible to researchers as well as to statisticians. He has lectured widely on meta-analysis, including at the NIH, CDC, and FDA. Read more: