↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 3,522)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
343 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
589 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junghee Kim, Jin-Hwa Park, Sujin Shin

Abstract

Simulation-based nursing education is an increasingly popular pedagogical approach. It provides students with opportunities to practice their clinical and decision-making skills through various real-life situational experiences. However, simulation approaches fall along a continuum ranging from low-fidelity to high-fidelity simulation. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect size of simulation-based educational interventions in nursing and compare effect sizes according to the fidelity level of the simulators through a meta-analysis. This study explores the quantitative evidence published in the electronic databases EBSCO, Medline, ScienceDirect, ERIC, RISS, and the National Assembly Library of Korea database. Using a search strategy including the search terms "nursing," "simulation," "human patient," and "simulator," we identified 2279 potentially relevant articles. Forty studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained in the analysis. This meta-analysis showed that simulation-based nursing education was effective in various learning domains, with a pooled random-effects standardized mean difference of 0.70. Subgroup analysis revealed that effect sizes were larger for high-fidelity simulation (0.86), medium-fidelity simulation (1.03), and standardized patients (0.86) than they were for low-fidelity and hybrid simulations. In terms of cognitive outcomes, the effect size was the largest for high-fidelity simulation (0.50). Regarding affective outcome, high-fidelity simulation (0.80) and standardized patients (0.73) had the largest effect sizes. These results suggest that simulation-based nursing educational interventions have strong educational effects, with particularly large effects in the psychomotor domain. Since the effect is not proportional to fidelity level, it is important to use a variety of educational interventions to meet all of the educational goals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 589 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 589 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 91 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 9%
Student > Bachelor 47 8%
Lecturer 34 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 6%
Other 140 24%
Unknown 191 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 189 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 81 14%
Social Sciences 29 5%
Psychology 12 2%
Engineering 11 2%
Other 58 10%
Unknown 209 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2020.
All research outputs
#682,230
of 23,664,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#42
of 3,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,906
of 335,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,664,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.