ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Evaluating student satisfaction and self-confidence across a scaffolded simulation curriculum in undergraduate nursing education.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Simulation in undergraduate nursing education is often evaluated as a single teaching event rather than as a coherent curriculum across multiple clinical contexts. Less is known about how students experience simulation when it is delivered as a scaffolded sequence across settings. To evaluate student satisfaction and self-confidence in learning across a scaffolded simulation curriculum delivered in four clinical settings within undergraduate nursing education. Methods: This prospective longitudinal repeated-measures study was conducted in a third-year undergraduate nursing simulation course at a university of applied sciences. The curriculum comprised four sequential blocks and combined prelearning, team-based standardized patient simulation, and PEARLS-guided debriefing. Of 135 students who completed the course in the standard format, 106 completed the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale at least once, yielding 396 survey responses. Results: Satisfaction and self-confidence were high overall, though scores were characterized by prominent ceiling effects and negative skew (residuals skewness = -2.56). While ratings increased significantly across the sequential blocks ( Conclusion: Students perceived the curriculum as coherent and supportive across diverse care settings. However, as curriculum blocks were delivered in a fixed order, sequence and setting effects remain confounded. Observed block differences should therefore be interpreted as reflecting cumulative familiarity rather than being uniquely attributable to the clinical settings or the scaffolded design itself. Study registration: This study was preregistered within a larger longitudinal project and later registered as a stand-alone study in the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CXJ3M).
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.