ArticleBMC medical education2026
Effects of standards of best practice in simulation-based training among midwifery students in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to determine whether simulation training designed according to INACSL Standards improves satisfaction, self-confidence, and perceptions of simulation design and educational practices among midwifery students in China.
backgroundMidwives are crucial in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality, and their effectiveness is directly impacted by the quality of midwifery education. Simulation training enhances midwifery students’ clinical competence, but research on applying INACLS standards in the China is limited.
designA quasi-experimental study was conducted at Zhejiang Chinese Medical University from January 2023 to June 2024, using a historical control design.
methodA total of 129 students were divided into two groups: the control group (n = 67) received standard simulation training while the intervention group (n = 62) followed the INACSL Standards. Data were collected using three scales: Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale along with Simulation Design Scale (SDS) and Educational Practices in Simulation Scale (EPSS).
resultsThe intervention group had significantly higher scores in student satisfaction (median difference=-0,200, 95%CI=[-0.400,0.0], P = 0.040) and active learning (mean difference=-0.130, 95%CI=[-0.222, -0.374], P = 0.006). The SDS sections of “objective/ information” (median difference=-0.200, 95%CI=[-0.400,-0.200], P < 0.001). and “guided reflection/ feedback” resulted in higher scores for the intervention group (median difference=-0.250, 95%CI=[-0.500,-0.250], P < 0.001) which contributed to a greater total SDS score (mean difference=-0.163, 95%CI=[-0.242,-0.084], P < 0.001). Self-confidence and other dimensions of the SDS and EPSS did not demonstrate any significant differences.
conclusionsSimulation training based on INACSL standards enhances students’ satisfaction and active learning through clear goals and structured feedback. Future studies should extend the intervention duration and integrate teaching methods to improve students’ self-confidence and professional skills.
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.