Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41331705›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025

An immersive mirror: a descriptive study of peer observer and active participant experiences in simulation.

Naomi Tutticci, Sandra Johnston, Joanne Ramsbotham, Karen Theobald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Naomi TutticciSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, 177 Kessels Rd, Nathan Qld, Brisbane, 4111, Australia. naomi.tutticci@qut.edu.au.
Sandra JohnstonSchool of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Joanne RamsbothamSchool of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Karen TheobaldSchool of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence and humanistic thinking about the thoughts and reactions of peer observers during nursing simulation. An increased understanding may provide new insights and opportunities to advance therapeutic relationships and holistic care. This study explored peer observer and active participant thoughts during simulation to better understand how shared learning experiences transform and improve nursing practice.

methodsA qualitive descriptive design generated data via peer observers and active participants' self-reported experiences from pre-registration second-year, nursing students. Responses were synthesized and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsFrom 175 peer-observer accounts, four codes were generated and synthesized into three themes: Observer self-critique and critique of others; observer empathy and affect; and observers' outsider perspective. Six codes were generated from the analysis of 234 active participant accounts analysis and synthesized into three themes: participant affect; participant cognition and participant confidence.

conclusionsThe peer observer role can experience simulation as an immersive and emotive encounter that may indicate active and deep learning is occurring. Simulation learning design should prioritize the identification of empathy experienced by observers for the participants and explicitly include it in cognitive processing undertaken during simulation debrief. Linking the experience of empathy with nursing theory in simulation is a powerful learning tool.

Indexed as

EmpathyHolisticNursingPeer observerPre-registrationSimulation

Identifiers

PMID41331705
PMCPMC12777330

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.