ArticleBMC nursing2025
Holopatient technology in nursing education: a cross-sectional analysis of student and faculty perceptions.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHolopatient technology, a mixed reality simulation tool, is increasingly used in nursing education to enhance clinical reasoning and student engagement. However, differences in perception between students and faculty remain underexplored.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 126 participants (84 nursing students and 42 faculty members) at a Saudi Arabian nursing college. All participants had prior exposure to Holopatient scenarios, including adult medical-surgical and maternal health cases. A researcher-developed, 20-item Likert-scale questionnaire assessed four domains: perceived effectiveness, overall satisfaction, ease of use, and implementation challenges. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multiple regression analyses were performed.
resultsStudents rated perceived effectiveness significantly higher (mean [M] = 4.2, standard deviation [SD] = 0.6) than faculty (M = 3.8, SD = 0.8; p < 0.01). Satisfaction was also higher among students (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7) than faculty (M = 3.7, SD = 0.9). Ease of use was similar (M = 4.0 vs. 3.9), while faculty reported more implementation challenges (M = 3.5, SD = 0.9) than students (M = 3.0, SD = 0.6). A significant association was found between faculty teaching experience and perceived challenges (χ
conclusionsStudents expressed more favourable perceptions of Holopatient technology than faculty. Digital literacy and prior simulation exposure were strong predictors of acceptance, while longer teaching experience was linked to lower enthusiasm. Faculty development and targeted support are essential for successful adoption. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.