Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38978483›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Effects of Immersive Technology-Based Education for Undergraduate Nursing Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Approach.

Subin Park, Hui Ju Shin, Hyoeun Kwak, Hyun Joo Lee

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Subin ParkCollege of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4464-1347
Hui Ju ShinCollege of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0002-3618-7930
Hyoeun KwakCollege of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3126-6376
Hyun Joo LeeMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6556-5326

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adoption of immersive technology in simulation-based nursing education has grown significantly, offering a solution to resource limitations and enabling safe access to clinical environments. Despite its advantages, there are still diverse reports regarding the effectiveness of immersive technology. It is crucial to verify the effectiveness of immersive technology in nursing education to inform future educational programs.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify the contents of immersive technology-based education for undergraduate nursing students and evaluate the effectiveness of immersive technology compared to traditional teaching methods.

methodsA literature search was performed using 4 databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science; the latest search was completed on January 19, 2023. The inclusion criteria were as follows: participants were undergraduate nursing students; studies were published in Korean or English; designs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized studies; and interventions involved virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality, or extended reality. Quality assessment was conducted using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool version 2 for RCTs and the Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies. The main outcomes of the included studies were classified according to the New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM), ranging from level 1 (reaction) to level 4 (results). Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software, and subgroup analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity of the results of the meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was adopted for assessing certainty and synthesizing results of the relevant literature.

resultsA total of 23 studies were included, with participant numbers ranging from 33 to 289. Of these, 19 (82.6%) studies adopted VR to simulate various nursing scenarios, including disaster training, resuscitation, health assessments, and home health care; 4 (17.4%) studies used AR technologies; and 15 (65.2%) studies involved virtual patients in their scenarios. Based on the NWKM, the main outcome variables were classified as level 1 (usability and satisfaction), level 2 (knowledge, motivation, confidence, performance, attitude, and self-efficacy), and level 3 (clinical reasoning); level 4 outcomes were not found in the selected studies. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that immersive technology-based nursing education is more effective than traditional education in knowledge attainment (standard mean difference [SMD]=0.59, 95% CI 0.28-0.90, P<.001, I

conclusionsThese findings support the effectiveness of immersive technology-based education for undergraduate nursing students, despite heterogeneity in methods and interventions. We suggest that long-term cohort studies be conducted to evaluate the effects of immersive technology-based nursing education on NWKM level 4.

Indexed as

Students, NursingEducation, Nursing, BaccalaureateHumansVirtual Realityaugmented realityextended realityimmersive technologymedical educationmeta-analysisnursing educationnursing studentssimulation-based learningsystematic reviewvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID38978483
PMCPMC11306947

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.