ArticleBMC nursing2026
Evaluation of a simulation-based interprofessional education program using a high-fidelity simulator: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) has been increasingly recognized as an essential approach for improving collaboration among healthcare professionals. Simulation-based learning offers an authentic and safe environment for implementing IPE. However, evidence regarding structured integration of high-fidelity simulation and interprofessional training in cardiovascular nursing education remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a simulation-based IPE model on clinical competence, collaborative attitudes, and critical thinking among nursing trainees.
objectiveTo evaluate the application effect of an interprofessional education model utilizing a high-fidelity simulation in the clinical teaching of cardiovascular nursing training.
methodsA quasi-experimental study using a non-equivalent cohort design was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital. Nursing trainees from two consecutive training cycles were allocated to either a traditional single-profession high-fidelity simulation group (control, n = 45) or a simulation-based interprofessional education group involving collaboration with medical trainees (intervention, n = 45). The intervention was implemented in a structured three-stage format comprising scenario introduction, simulation practice, and facilitated debriefing. Outcomes were assessed using theoretical and operational examinations, the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration, the Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-SCV). Independent-sample t tests and χ² tests were applied for group comparisons.
resultsCompared with the control group, nursing trainees in the interprofessional simulation group achieved significantly higher post-intervention theoretical scores (82.65 ± 4.32 vs. 71.23 ± 5.87, p < 0.01) and operational performance scores (90.36 ± 3.89 vs. 78.45 ± 4.63, p < 0.01). Significant improvements were also observed in collaborative attitudes, particularly in the domains of shared education and teamwork, nurse autonomy, and overall collaboration scores (all p < 0.001). Additionally, critical thinking scores across cognitive, rational, and systematic domains were significantly higher in the intervention group following training (all p < 0.001).
conclusionInterprofessional simulation-based training was associated with improvements in critical thinking and collaborative attitudes among nursing trainees. These findings suggest that incorporating interprofessional simulation into training programs may support the development of competencies required for team-based clinical practice.
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.