Claims

HFPS based on life-threatening scenarios shows no significant difference from other teaching methods on nursing students' self-efficacy (d=0.05)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
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 i0 No significant difference was detected between HFPS and control groups for self-efficacy, with a negligible pooled effect (d=0.05, 95% CI −0.45 to 0.55, p=0.840). → 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 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effect meta-analysis of self-efficacy self-rating instruments (e.g., Resuscitation Self-Efficacy Scale). The pooled effect was negligible and non-significant: "d=0.05, 95% CI [−0.45 to 0.55], Z-test=0.20, p=0.840".

"No significant differences were detected between HFPS and control groups for the satisfaction (d=0.38, 95% CI [−0.01 to 0.77], Z-test=1.90, p=0.053), self-confidence (d=0.21, 95% CI [−0.02 to 0.43], Z-test=1.75, p=0.072) and self-efficacy (d=0.05, 95% CI [−0.45 to 0.55], Z-test=0.20, p=0.840)"

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.