Serious Games in Nursing Education: Scoping Review of Applications, Effectiveness, and Future Directions.

Background: Serious games (SGs) have emerged as a promising tool in nursing education, providing interactive learning environments for clinical simulation, skill development, and feedback. These games enhance knowledge, clinical reasoning, and psychomotor skills. However, evidence on their effectiveness is dispersed across various platforms and outcome measures, making it difficult to derive clear guidelines for their integration into nursing curricula. Objective: This scoping review aimed to systematically identify and map existing evidence on the use of SGs in nursing education, analyze game characteristics, and identify critical gaps to inform future research and practice development. Methods: This scoping review followed the JBI framework and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Nine databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, CBM, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIP) were searched from inception to January 15, 2026. Eligible studies were those reporting on original research on SGs in nursing education. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Risk of bias was assessed using a standardized checklist. The extracted data encompassed study characteristics, study design, participant information, sample sizes, application context, teaching content, and SG characteristics. Data were extracted and synthesized with descriptive statistics and content analysis. An evidence gap map was created to show the study distribution across course categories and outcome domains. Results: We screened 6078 records and included 24 studies. Publications were from 2021 to 2025 (n=13, 54%), with the majority conducted in Europe (n=13, 54%). Quasi-experimental designs (n=10, 42%) and randomized controlled trials (n=8, 33%) were predominant. SGs were mainly used in fundamental or skills training and adult nursing courses. Scenario-based decision points (n=20, 83%) and points, badges, or leaderboards (n=20, 83%) were the most common game mechanics, while progression or unlocking and collaborative elements were less frequent. Outcomes most often assessed were knowledge (n=16, 67%), skills (n=10, 42%), and engagement or usability (n=13, 54%). Objective use metrics were rarely reported (n=1, 4%), indicating limited data on in-platform learning behaviors. Most SGs were delivered as digital non-virtual reality applications or computer-based simulation games. Follow-up assessment beyond immediate postintervention outcomes was infrequent. An evidence gap map showed studies concentrated in skills-based training and adult nursing, with fewer studies in maternity or neonatal nursing, critical care, and foundational sciences. Conclusions: This review extends earlier work on SGs in nursing education by mapping evidence across curricular areas, intervention reporting, and outcome assessment, rather than focusing mainly on effectiveness or specific formats. It shows where evidence is concentrated and where important gaps remain, particularly in underrepresented course areas, intervention descriptions, follow-up assessments, and objective use data. These findings provide a clearer picture of the evidence base and can inform curriculum planning; the use of SGs in skills-based and clinical training; and future decisions about their design, implementation, and evaluation.