Health Science Journal

  • ISSN: 1108-7366
  • Journal h-index: 51
  • Journal CiteScore: 10.69
  • Journal Impact Factor: 9.13
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • CINAHL Complete
  • Scimago
  • Electronic Journals Library
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • EMCare
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
Share This Page


Testing of simulation training device for assessment of cervical dilatation among nursing student of karad, india

Asha Pratinidhi

Introduction: Knowledge of cervical dilatation is a pre-requisite of plotting of cervicograph which is an important component of partograph recommended by WHO for monitoring of every delivery. Use of cervicography is not routinely undertaken, an important reason being inability of birth attendants to specify cervical dilatation in centimeters. The aim of the present study was to test simulation training device as teaching tool in nursing college of Karad, India. Material and Methods: A batch of fourth year nursing students who had completed midwifery clinical rotation of five and half months and having experience of monitoring of the labour were randomly allocated to study group (n=43) and control group (n=45). A conventional training session was given to both groups on measurement of cervical dilatation. In addition the simulation training device, which consisted of a rotating drum on which rubber rings were mounted from 3 to 10 cm size was used for training of the study group. Unpaired‘t’ test and Chi-square test were used to compare ability of nursing students to identify correct size of the hole after blinding. Results: There was no significant difference in the knowledge of study and control groups before training. There was significant difference in the pre and post test scores of both study and control groups (t=20.570, p