Simulation-based nursing education shows a medium-to-large pooled effect on learning outcomes (SMD = 0.70)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Across 40 included studies, simulation-based nursing education had a pooled random-effects standardized mean difference of 0.70 (95% CI 0.58–0.83). → Kim Junghee 2016

Evidence¶

Kim Junghee 2016¶

Kim Junghee, Park Jin-Hwa, Shin Sujin. (2016). Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analysis of 40 experimental or quasi-experimental studies of simulation-based nursing education, analyzed with a random effects model in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 after significant heterogeneity (Q = 253.22, P < .001). The pooled effect size was ES = 0.70, "with 95 % confidence intervals of 0.58–0.83"; the funnel plot appeared symmetrical, suggesting minimal publication bias.

"The overall effect size for the random effects model was 0.70, with 95 % confidence intervals of 0.58–0.83 (Table 3) (Fig. 2)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Simulation-based education compared to patient-based clinical teaching alone shows a large pooled advantage in objectively assessed outcomes in undergraduate nursing students — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• HF simulation improves ALS knowledge at course conclusion more than LF simulation or traditional training (pooled SMD = 0.38) — related
• High-fidelity simulation training improves knowledge acquisition among practising registered nurses (moderate pooled effect) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim