Effects of simulation technology-based learning on nursing students' learning outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Gaps between theory and clinical practice represent challenges for nursing students during their learning processes. Providing simulation technology-based learning for nursing students is essential for modern nurse education, but evidence of efficacy remains scarce. To determine the effects of simul...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Nurse education today 2021-12, Vol.107, p.105127-105127, Article 105127 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Gaps between theory and clinical practice represent challenges for nursing students during their learning processes. Providing simulation technology-based learning for nursing students is essential for modern nurse education, but evidence of efficacy remains scarce.
To determine the effects of simulation technology-based learning for nursing students.
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Five databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science) were electronically searched through May 30, 2021. Eligibility criteria included nursing students, simulated technology-based learning as the primary intervention, and randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies published in English. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.0 was used to conduct a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Begg's and Egger's tests were performed to assess publication bias, and sensitivity analysis performed using a remove one study method.
A total of 17 studies were included in this study. Simulated technology–based learning significantly increased nursing student knowledge acquisition (standard mean difference [SMD]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25–1.18, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0260-6917 1532-2793 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105127 |