Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38033419›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Exploring facilitation in virtual simulation in nursing education: A scoping review.

Lena Günterberg Heyn, Espen Andreas Brembo, Kirsten Røland Byermoen, Caroline Cruaud, Hilde Eide, Jill Flo, Anita Nordsteien, Grith Overgaard, Hugrun Ösp Egilsdottir

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Lena Günterberg HeynCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Espen Andreas BremboCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Kirsten Røland ByermoenCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Caroline CruaudUnit for Digitalisation and Education, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Hilde EideCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Jill FloCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Anita NordsteienCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Grith OvergaardCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.
Hugrun Ösp EgilsdottirCenter for Health and Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Drammen, Grønland 58, 3045 Drammen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically map existing research regarding the reflective feedback in virtual simulation in undergraduate nursing education. Methods: A scoping review was conducted based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the PRISMA-ScR. Results: We included 41 studies from 15 different countries. The simulation interventions allowed for interaction between the student and the virtual patient, the software, faculty, peers, or a combination of two or more of these. Students valued reflective feedback during and after the simulation. Conclusions: Our review emphasizes the importance of a human in the loop. Feedback before, during, and after the simulation is possible in virtual simulation where the facilitator can pause the virtual scenario and stimulate reflections during the simulation to obtain deep learning. Virtual simulation provides opportunities to give feedback from the software, such as cues or direct feedback. Innovation: There is a lack of focus on the feedback process and there is a need to revitalize the role of facilitators in a virtual simulation to determine their relative contribution in this process. Several studies reported the usefulness or the effect of virtual simulation on learning processes, but most lacked emphasis on investigating the significance of including a human in the loop.

Indexed as

Nursing educationReflective feedbackScoping reviewVirtual simulation

Identifiers

PMID38033419
PMCPMC10687044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.