ArticleBMC medical education2025
The effect of simulation training on midwifery students' skills, satisfaction with learning, anxiety, and self-efficacy in neonatal heel prick blood collection.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation is often used in midwifery education because it enables students to practice clinical skills in a safe environment where mistakes can occur without the risk of person harm. This study was performed to measure the effect of a high-fidelity simulation environment and facilitator providing support through a panel on midwifery students' skills, satisfaction with learning, anxiety, and self-efficacy in performing neonatal heel prick blood collection.
methodsThe study is quasi-experimental desıgn. The study sample consisted of 92 students in total, with n = 46 in the control group and n = 46 in the experimental group (N = 92). The control group was instructed and evaluated on neonatal heel prick blood collection skills using a structured scenario in a simulation laboratory, with face to face facilitator support and without the use of a control panel. The experimental group underwent the same instructional and testing procedures using the same simulation scenario in a high-fidelity simulation environment, where facilitator support was provided remotely via a control panel.
resultsThe study revealed that students' neonatal heel prick blood collection skills were similar and were not affected by the high-fidelity simulation environment. The mean scores for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Student Satisfaction and Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLS) were significantly higher in the high-fidelity simulation environment (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in the Self-Efficacy-Sufficiency Scale (SESS) scores between students in the experimental and control groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionThis study found that students' heel prick skills and self-efficacy were similar regardless of the fidelity level of the simulation laboratories and the role of the facilitator. In cases where the high-fidelity simulation environment and the facilitator provided support through a panel, students' anxiety and satisfaction levels were higher.
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.