The effect of high-fidelity simulation on practising nurses' self-confidence is inconclusive, varying by study design¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2–r3 · q2–q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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? Random-effects meta-analysis of four studies (140 nurses) found no statistically significant effect of HFS on self-confidence (SMD = 0.59, p = 0.07), though the fixed-effect model was significant (SMD = 0.48). → Zhou Jie 2026 q2 i3 Subgroup analysis attributed the heterogeneity to study design: RCTs showed no effect while quasi-experiments showed a large significant effect on self-confidence. → Zhou Jie 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Zhou Jie 2026¶

Zhou Jie, Zhang Guowen, Song Peige, Liaw Sok Ying, Luk Tzu Tsun. (2026). Effects of High‐Fidelity Simulation Training on Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction for Practising Registered Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70206

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-analysis of two RCTs and two quasi-experiments (140 nurses) on self-confidence. The review reports "no statistically significant effect on self‐confidence"; the fixed-effect model yielded SMD = 0.48, 95% CI [0.14, 0.83], p < 0.01. Equivalence was not tested.

"The random‐effects meta‐analysis showed no statistically significant effect on self‐confidence (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI, [−0.04, 1.22], p = 0.07)"

Zhou Jie 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis by study design of the self-confidence meta-analysis. The review reports RCTs showed no effect (SMD = 0.08) while quasi-experiments showed a large significant effect (SMD = 1.19), indicating "the study design and context of the training might influence outcomes".

"Subgroups analysis revealed the study design contributed to heterogeneity. Specifically, RCTs showed no effect (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI, [−0.35, 0.52]), while quasi‐experiments showed a large significant effect (SMD = 1.19, 95% CI, [0.61, 1.76])"

Discussion¶

High-fidelity simulation training improves knowledge acquisition among practising registered nurses (moderate pooled effect) — related
High-fidelity simulation training yields a large effect on learning satisfaction among practising registered nurses — related
The HFS evidence base for practising nurses comprises eight small studies with risk-of-bias concerns — related
In an RCT of ICU nurses, simulation-based education produced within-group gains in knowledge, confidence and competence but no between-group differences at 6 weeks — related
High-fidelity simulation improves ECT procedural skills substantially but does not reliably improve theoretical knowledge or confidence — related
IVR simulation significantly improves nursing students' self-efficacy but not satisfaction or confidence — related
Simulation-based education improves nursing students' clinical decision-making, judgment, and self-confidence — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-31`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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