Claims

Scenario, manikin brand and control intervention explain heterogeneity only for self-efficacy, not for the other HFPS learning outcomes

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Subgroup analyses found scenario (ANOVA Q-test 11.43, p=0.003), manikin brand (Q-test 10.59, p=0.001) and control intervention (Q-test 13.37, p=0.010) were sources of heterogeneity for self-efficacy, but not for the remaining outcomes. → La Cerra Carmen 2019

Evidence

La Cerra Carmen 2019

La Cerra Carmen, Dante Angelo, Caponnetto Valeria, Franconi Ilaria, Gaxhja Elona, Petrucci Cristina, Alfes Celeste M, Lancia Loreto. (2019). Effects of high-fidelity simulation based on life-threatening clinical condition scenarios on learning outcomes of undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 9(2):e025306. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025306

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup moderator analyses across the meta-analysed outcomes, using scenario, manikin brand and control intervention as moderators. Overall heterogeneity was significant for all outcomes ("I2 from 70.09% to 89.85%").

"The scenario (analysis of variance [ANOVA] Q-test 11.43, p=0.003), manikin brand (ANOVA Q-test 10.59, p=0.001), and control intervention (ANOVA Q-test 13.37, p=0.010) appeared to be the source of heterogeneity for self-efficacy."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.