ArticleBMC medical education2023
Stress responses in high-fidelity simulation and standard simulation training among medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07147322 (The Effect of Basic Life Support Training in a Virtual Environment on Perceived Stress and Measured Stress Responses Compared to Conventional Basic Life Support Training), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
The Effect of Basic Life Support Training in a Virtual Environment on Perceived Stress and Measured Stress Responses Compared to Conventional Basic Life Support Training
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of high-fidelity simulation on nursing students' self-confidence and stress levels during patient intervention: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Pupilometer efficacy in monitoring anxiety in undergraduate medical students during high-fidelity clinical simulation.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Article
- Is simulation always a safe learning environment? Anxiety and social anxiety symptoms in first-year medical students during simulated patient encounters.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Creativity in high-fidelity simulation-based nursing education: associations with learning outcomes and stress.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Stress responses and experiences of surgical trainees in simulation-based training of advanced laparoscopic procedures in highly realistic environments.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Interprofessional Simulation in Hospital Leadership Training: Its Role in Improving Participants' Self-Efficacy.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Psychological Harm in High-Fidelity Simulation: A Concept Analysis.Nursing research and practice · 2026Review
- The effect of simulation training on midwifery students' skills, satisfaction with learning, anxiety, and self-efficacy in neonatal heel prick blood collection.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Introducing Low-Fidelity Simulation Teaching in the Early Years of Undergraduate Medical Training.Cureus · 2025Article
- Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Clinical Simulation Anxiety Levels of Undergraduate Medical Students Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The use of extended reality in anesthesiology education: a scoping review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
- Too stressed to think? A scoping review of the literature for healthcare educators utilising high acuity clinical scenarios.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Medical Students' Confidence After "CardioSim": A Low-Fidelity, Peer Role-Play Simulation.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation has been recognized as a shift in healthcare education that can improve skills and patient safety and outcomes. High-fidelity simulation of critical medical situations can be a source of stress among participants that can interfere with students' abilities leading to unexpected emotional responses. The aim of this study is to determine if two simulation methods, high-fidelity (HF) and procedural simulation (PS), may be associated with stress responses at a self-perceived and biological level (salivary cortisol variations), and to compare stress levels of the two different simulation method. We also wanted to find independent variables associated with cortisol total hormonal output.
methodsA quasi-experimental before-after study was used including the administration of questionnaires, and biomarkers evaluation by salivary cortisol samples before and after simulation. A total of 148 students were eligible and agreed to participate in the study. We used paired T-test for mean comparison regarding State-trait anxiety for both HF and PT simulations. For NASA-TLX we performed a T-test mean comparison between groups. We used paired T-test mean comparison for cortisol analysis. Multivariable linear regression has been used to assess variables associated with AUC
resultsvalues of STAI-Y scores were relatively higher at the end of the HF and PS sessions. NASA-TLX was significantly higher at baseline for the HF simulations, with respect to the PS simulation. Cortisol fold increase was significantly different in the two groups. Linear regression showed that cortisol AUCg was related to the STAI-Y score in both groups.
conclusionParticipating students developed a stress response both after in the HF and PS training, testified by psychological and biological outputs. According to our results, stress levels were increased for simply being in a simulation scenario than to the intrinsic complexity of the task required. More studies are needed to confirm this trend and to clarify the role of simulated stress response in a long-term learning scenario.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.