PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Education in nursing has noticed a positive effect of simulation-based education. There are many studies available on the effects of simulation-based education, but most of those involve a single institution, nonrandomized controlled trials, small sample sizes and subjective evaluations of the effects. The purpose of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effects of high-fidelity simulation, computer-based simulation, high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation, and case study on undergraduate nursing students.
METHODS: A total of 270 nursing students were recruited from five universities in China. Participants were randomly divided into four groups at each institution: the high-fidelity simulation group, the computer-based simulation group, the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group, and the case study group. Finally, 239 participants completed the intervention and evaluation, with 58, 67, 57, and 57 participants in each group. The data were collected at three stages: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and three months after the intervention.
RESULTS: The demographic data and baseline evaluation indices did not significantly differ among the four groups. A statistically significant difference was not observed between the four methods for improving knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, or interest in learning. While skill improvement differed significantly among the different groups after the intervention (p = 0.020), after three months, no difference was observed (p = 0.139). The improvement in skill in the computer-based simulation group was significantly lower at the end of the intervention than that in the high-fidelity simulation group (p = 0.048) or the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group (p = 0.020).
CONCLUSIONS: Nursing students benefit equally from four methods in cultivating their knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, and interest in learning both immediately and over time. High-fidelity simulation and high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation improve skill more effectively than computer-based simulation in the short term. Nursing educators can select the most suitable teaching method to achieve the intended learning outcomes depending on the specific circumstances.
BACKGROUND: This clinical trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (clinical trial number: ChiCTR2400084880, date of the registration: 27/05/2024).
METHODS: A total of 270 nursing students were recruited from five universities in China. Participants were randomly divided into four groups at each institution: the high-fidelity simulation group, the computer-based simulation group, the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group, and the case study group. Finally, 239 participants completed the intervention and evaluation, with 58, 67, 57, and 57 participants in each group. The data were collected at three stages: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and three months after the intervention.
RESULTS: The demographic data and baseline evaluation indices did not significantly differ among the four groups. A statistically significant difference was not observed between the four methods for improving knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, or interest in learning. While skill improvement differed significantly among the different groups after the intervention (p = 0.020), after three months, no difference was observed (p = 0.139). The improvement in skill in the computer-based simulation group was significantly lower at the end of the intervention than that in the high-fidelity simulation group (p = 0.048) or the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group (p = 0.020).
CONCLUSIONS: Nursing students benefit equally from four methods in cultivating their knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, and interest in learning both immediately and over time. High-fidelity simulation and high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation improve skill more effectively than computer-based simulation in the short term. Nursing educators can select the most suitable teaching method to achieve the intended learning outcomes depending on the specific circumstances.
BACKGROUND: This clinical trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (clinical trial number: ChiCTR2400084880, date of the registration: 27/05/2024).
摘要：
背景：护理教育已经注意到基于模拟的教育的积极作用。有许多关于模拟教育效果的研究，但是其中大多数涉及一个单一的机构，非随机对照试验，小样本量和对效果的主观评价。这项多中心随机对照试验的目的是评估高保真模拟的效果，基于计算机的模拟，高保真模拟与基于计算机的模拟相结合，并对护理本科生进行个案研究。
方法：从中国五所大学招募270名护理专业学生。参与者在每个机构被随机分为四组：高保真模拟组，基于计算机的模拟小组，高保真仿真与基于计算机的仿真组相结合，和案例研究小组。最后,239名参与者完成了干预和评估，每组58、67、57和57名参与者。数据收集分为三个阶段：干预前，干预后立即，干预后三个月。
结果：四组之间的人口统计学数据和基线评估指标没有显着差异。在提高知识的四种方法之间没有观察到统计学上的显着差异，跨专业合作，批判性思维,关怀,或对学习的兴趣。虽然干预后不同组的技能改善有显著差异(p=0.020)，三个月后,没有观察到差异(p=0.139)。基于计算机的模拟组的技能提高在干预结束时明显低于高保真模拟组(p=0.048)或高保真模拟结合基于计算机的模拟组(p=0.020)。
结论：护理专业学生在培养知识方面从四种方法中获益相同，跨专业合作，批判性思维,关怀,和兴趣学习立即和随着时间的推移。高保真仿真和高保真仿真结合基于计算机的仿真在短期内比基于计算机的仿真更有效地提高技能。护理教育工作者可以根据具体情况选择最合适的教学方法来实现预期的学习成果。
背景：该临床试验已在中国临床试验注册中心注册（临床试验编号：ChiCTR2400084880，注册日期：2024年5月27日）。
方法：从中国五所大学招募270名护理专业学生。参与者在每个机构被随机分为四组：高保真模拟组，基于计算机的模拟小组，高保真仿真与基于计算机的仿真组相结合，和案例研究小组。最后,239名参与者完成了干预和评估，每组58、67、57和57名参与者。数据收集分为三个阶段：干预前，干预后立即，干预后三个月。
结果：四组之间的人口统计学数据和基线评估指标没有显着差异。在提高知识的四种方法之间没有观察到统计学上的显着差异，跨专业合作，批判性思维,关怀,或对学习的兴趣。虽然干预后不同组的技能改善有显著差异(p=0.020)，三个月后,没有观察到差异(p=0.139)。基于计算机的模拟组的技能提高在干预结束时明显低于高保真模拟组(p=0.048)或高保真模拟结合基于计算机的模拟组(p=0.020)。
结论：护理专业学生在培养知识方面从四种方法中获益相同，跨专业合作，批判性思维,关怀,和兴趣学习立即和随着时间的推移。高保真仿真和高保真仿真结合基于计算机的仿真在短期内比基于计算机的仿真更有效地提高技能。护理教育工作者可以根据具体情况选择最合适的教学方法来实现预期的学习成果。
背景：该临床试验已在中国临床试验注册中心注册（临床试验编号：ChiCTR2400084880，注册日期：2024年5月27日）。
