Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39965203›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Simulation-Based Learning Supported by Technology to Enhance Critical Thinking in Nursing Students: Scoping Review.

Hege Vistven Stenseth, Simen A Steindal, Marianne Trygg Solberg, Mia Alexandra Ølnes, Anne Lene Sørensen, Camilla Strandell-Laine, Camilla Olaussen, Caroline Farsjø Aure, Ingunn Pedersen, Jaroslav Zlamal and 4 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

14 authors.

Hege Vistven StensethDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1971-7701
Simen A SteindalDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7676-8900
Marianne Trygg SolbergDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2828-0759
Mia Alexandra ØlnesDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8392-0408
Anne Lene SørensenDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4637-9808
Camilla Strandell-LaineDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8023-1428
Camilla OlaussenDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7316-2890
Caroline Farsjø AureDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8546-9104
Ingunn PedersenNord University, Bodø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7717-8304
Jaroslav ZlamalDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7083-3433
Jussara Gue MartiniPostgraduate Program in Nursing, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2629-293X
Paula BresolinPostgraduate Program in Nursing, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2698-854X
Silje Christin Wang LinnerudDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7363-7190
Andréa Aparecida Gonçalves NesDepartment of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Nursing, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0684-1401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritical thinking is a crucial skill in the nursing profession and must be fostered through nursing education. Simulation-based learning (SBL) with technological modalities is a pedagogical approach to enhance critical thinking skills for nursing students. The use of technology in SBL to achieve critical thinking skills is diverse. No previous scoping review has systematically mapped studies on SBL supported by technology to enhance critical thinking in nursing students.

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to systematically map research on the use of SBL supported by technology to enhance critical thinking in nursing students.

methodsThis scoping review was conducted according to the framework by Arksey and O'Malley and was reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A systematic, comprehensive literature search was performed in the LILACS, ERIC, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases in 2021 and repeated in 2023 and 2024. Pairs of authors independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full-text papers and extracted data from the included studies. The data underwent summative and thematic analysis and were categorized according to the findings.

resultsIn total, 4 main categories of technology applied in SBL were identified: computer-based simulations, human-patient simulators, virtual reality or immersive virtual reality, and others. The findings revealed a shift across time in the technology used for SBL to enhance critical thinking, from human patient simulators to computer-based simulations. A dominant part of the included studies published after 2018 (21/44, 48%) incorporated a combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning activities. The theoretical foundation of the studies revealed a range of scientific theories and conceptual frameworks and models. Enablers of or barriers to the enhancement of critical thinking skills in nursing students were identified within the following themes: affinity for and availability of technology, realism, accessibility, engagement and motivation, validation, return on investment, and enhanced critical thinking through SBL using technology.

conclusionsThere has been a noticeable shift in the technology and use of technology in SBL. Descriptions of the applied technology and pedagogical considerations are pivotal for comparing or synthesizing research results. There has been a trend toward a blended educational approach combining synchronous and asynchronous learning activities. User technological proficiency and the perceived quality of the technology are imperative in the development of critical thinking. Realism, engagement, and motivation play pivotal roles in the enhancement of critical thinking in technologically supported SBL. The establishment of robust theoretical foundations of research and standardized research practices will strengthen the evidence obtained from the research conducted.

Indexed as

Education, NursingSimulation TrainingStudents, NursingThinkingHumansLearningcritical thinkingnursing educationnursing studentsreviewsimulation-based learningtechnologically supported simulation-based learning

Identifiers

PMID39965203
PMCPMC11888118

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.