Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35189889›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2022

Integrating simulation training during clinical practice in nursing homes: an experimental study of nursing students' knowledge acquisition, self-efficacy and learning needs.

Camilla Olaussen, Simen A Steindal, Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen, Ingunn Aase, Hege Vistven Stenseth, Christine Raaen Tvedt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Camilla OlaussenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15b, 0456, Oslo, Norway. Camilla.Olaussen@ldh.no.
Simen A SteindalLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15b, 0456, Oslo, Norway.
Lars-Petter Jelsness-JørgensenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15b, 0456, Oslo, Norway.
Ingunn AaseSHARE- Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Hege Vistven StensethLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15b, 0456, Oslo, Norway.
Christine Raaen TvedtLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggata 15b, 0456, Oslo, Norway.
Lovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NOUniversity of Stavanger · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited access to supervision, feedback and quality learning experiences pose challenges to learning in the clinical setting for first-year nursing students who are beginning their clinical experiences. Prior studies have indicated that simulation training, as a partial replacement of clinical practice hours, may improve learning. However, there has been little research on simulation training integrated as a partial replacement during first-year students' clinical practice in nursing homes. The primary aim of this study was to examine first-year nursing students' knowledge acquisition and self-efficacy in integrating a partial replacement of clinical hours in nursing homes with simulation training. Its secondary aim was to examine perceptions of how learning needs were met in the simulated environment compared with the clinical environment.

designThe primary aim was addressed using an experimental design that included pre- and post-tests. The secondary aim was investigated using a descriptive survey-based comparison.

methodsFirst-year students at a Norwegian university college (n = 116) were asked to participate. Those who agreed (n = 103) were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 52) or the control group (n = 51). A knowledge test, the General Self-efficacy Scale and the Clinical Learning Environment Comparison Survey were used to measure students' outcomes and perceptions. The data were analysed using independent samples t-tests, chi-square tests and paired samples t-tests.

resultsKnowledge scores from pre- to post-tests were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group with a medium to large effect size (p < 0.01, Hedges' g = 0.6). No significant differences in self-efficacy were identified. Significant differences (p <  0.05) were observed between the simulated and the clinical environment with regard to meeting learning needs; effect sizes ranged from small and medium to large (Cohen's d from 0.3 to 1.0).

conclusionIntegrating the partial replacement of clinical hours in nursing homes with simulation training for first-year nursing students was positively associated with knowledge acquisition and meeting learning needs. These findings are promising with regard to simulation as a viable partial replacement for traditional clinical practice in nursing homes to improve learning.

Indexed as

Clinical learningKnowledgeNursing educationNursing homesSelf-efficacySimulation training

Identifiers

PMID35189889
PMCPMC8862467
OpenAlexW4212945716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.