ReviewNursing research and practice2026
Psychological Harm in High-Fidelity Simulation: A Concept Analysis.
Review in Nursing research and practice, 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.
- Psychological Harm in High-Fidelity Simulation: A Concept Analysis.Nursing research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To clarify and define the concept of psychological harm in high-fidelity simulation. Background: High-fidelity simulation is widely used in undergraduate nursing education to promote clinical competence and decision-making. While often beneficial, emotionally intense or poorly supported simulation experiences can result in psychological harm, an underrecognized phenomenon that may disrupt learning, self-efficacy, and professional development. Current literature lacks conceptual clarity to distinguish psychological harm from expected simulation-related stress. Design: Concept analysis. Methodology: A concept analysis was conducted using the method developed by Walker and Avant to explore psychological harm in the context of high-fidelity simulation. Data Sources: Peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2025 was retrieved from MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and TRIP Pro. Inclusion criteria focused on articles that discussed psychological or emotional responses to high-fidelity simulation in healthcare education. Empirical peer-reviewed literature informed the identification of defining attributes, antecedents, and consequences. Practice-oriented documents and standards were reviewed to contextualize disciplinary usage; studies focused solely on technical skill acquisition were excluded. Results: Three defining attributes were identified: (1) absence of psychological safety, (2) emotional disruption exceeding expected learning stress, and (3) sustained emotional impact beyond the simulation experience. Antecedents included emotionally intense content, insufficient preparation, unskilled facilitation, and performance-oriented learning environments. Consequences included diminished self-confidence, avoidance of future simulation, and impaired transfer of learning to clinical practice. Recent qualitative findings revealed that harm is often internalized and shaped by relational dynamics with simulationists and peers. Conclusion: Psychological harm in high-fidelity simulation is a multidimensional, learner-dependent experience that can hinder both academic and professional development. This concept analysis offers a foundational definition and theoretical structure to support future research, education, and policy related to learner well-being in simulation.
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.