Brief Summary

Pressure injuries are damage to the skin and underlying tissue that may occur in patients who stay in bed for long periods, have limited mobility or use medical devices. These injuries are often preventable. They may cause pain, infection, longer hospital stays and increased care costs. For this reason, it is important that nurses and nursing students have accurate knowledge, confidence and positive attitudes about preventing pressure injuries.

The aim of this study is to compare two different methods of teaching pressure injury prevention to nursing students. One group of students received the education in a face-to-face classroom session. The other group completed the same topic through an artificial intelligence-supported modular e-learning programme. The e-learning programme included short videos, clinical examples, question-and-answer activities, short quizzes and feedback. The educational materials prepared with artificial intelligence support were checked by experts before being used with students.

Undergraduate nursing students took part in the study. The students were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In both groups, measurements were taken before the education, immediately after the education and four weeks later. The study assessed students' knowledge of pressure injury prevention, their confidence in managing pressure injury prevention and their attitudes towards prevention.

This study does not provide a treatment or direct intervention to patients. However, its findings may help improve how nursing students and future healthcare professionals are educated about pressure injury prevention. In the long term, better education may support safer patient care, help prevent pressure injuries and improve the quality of care.

Detailed Description

This study is a single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled educational trial comparing two different teaching methods for pressure injury prevention. The study was conducted with undergraduate nursing students in the nursing department of a faculty of health sciences.

Pressure injuries are an important patient safety problem, especially for patients with limited mobility, patients in intensive care, patients after surgery and patients using medical devices. Preventing pressure injuries requires regular risk assessment, skin inspection, appropriate positioning, pressure redistribution, nutritional assessment, monitoring of device-related pressure and continuity of care. Therefore, it is important that nursing students develop adequate knowledge, self-efficacy and positive attitudes before graduation.

In this study, students were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group received pressure injury prevention education through conventional face-to-face classroom instruction. The second group completed the same core content through an artificial intelligence-supported modular e-learning programme. Both educational methods covered key topics, including the causes of pressure injuries, classification, risk assessment, nutrition, preventive interventions, care for special patient groups and medical device-related pressure injuries.

The artificial intelligence-supported e-learning programme consisted of short video presentations, narration scripts, clinical examples, question-and-answer activities, short quizzes and feedback sections. The educational materials were prepared with the support of artificial intelligence, but they were not used directly. The materials were reviewed by experts in surgical nursing and related fields for clinical accuracy, consistency with current evidence, suitability for undergraduate nursing students and clarity of instruction. Necessary revisions were made according to expert feedback before the e-learning content was delivered.

Students' outcomes were assessed at three time points: before the education, immediately after the education and four weeks after the education. Knowledge of pressure injury prevention was measured using PUKAT 2.0-T. Self-efficacy in pressure injury management was measured using PUM-SES. Attitudes towards pressure injury prevention were measured using APuP. This allowed the study to examine not only immediate learning after the education but also whether learning was maintained after four weeks.

This study does not involve a direct clinical intervention with patients. The participants are nursing students. Therefore, the effect of the study on patient care is indirect. However, improving the way pressure injury prevention is taught may support future healthcare professionals' clinical decision-making and patient safety practices.

The study aims to show whether artificial intelligence-supported modular e-learning is a useful method for pressure injury prevention education, how it compares with face-to-face instruction and whether students retain what they have learned over a short follow-up period. The findings may contribute to the development of nursing education programmes, the standardisation of pressure injury prevention education and stronger patient safety-focused education strategies in tissue viability.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Being an undergraduate nursing student.
• Being aged 18 years or older.
• Voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study.
• Providing written informed consent.
• Being able to participate in the allocated educational intervention and scheduled outcome assessments.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Refusing to participate in the study.
• Having previously received additional structured education on pressure ulcer or pressure injury prevention outside the standard curriculum.
• Being unable to complete the educational intervention due to absence or withdrawal before intervention delivery.

No individual participant data will be shared. The study was conducted with undergraduate nursing students at a single institution, and the dataset may include educational and demographic information that could increase the risk of indirect identification. De-identified aggregate results will be reported in publications and scientific presentations.

No masking was used because the educational delivery methods were visibly different. Participants, the intervention provider and the outcome assessors were aware of group allocation.