Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHegland, Pål André
dc.contributor.authorAarlie, Hege
dc.contributor.authorStrømme, Hilde
dc.contributor.authorJamtvedt, Gro
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-11T13:07:44Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-05T11:58:51Z
dc.date.available2019-03-11T13:07:44Z
dc.date.available2019-04-05T11:58:51Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-19
dc.identifier.citationHegland PA, Aarlie H, Strømme H, Jamtvedt AG. Simulation-based training for nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today. 2017;54:6-20en
dc.identifier.issn0260-6917
dc.identifier.issn0260-6917
dc.identifier.issn1532-2793
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/6928
dc.description.abstractBackground: Simulation-based training is a widespread strategy to improve health-care quality. However, its effect on registered nurses has previously not been established in systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate effect of simulation-based training on nurses’ skills and knowledge. Methods: We searched CDSR, DARE, HTA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and SveMed+ for randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating effect of simulation-based training among nurses. Searches were completed in December 2016. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We compared simulation-based training to other learning strategies, high-fidelity simulation to other simulation strategies, and different organisation of simulation training. Data were analysed through meta-analysis and narrative syntheses. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. For the comparison of simulation-based training to other learning strategies on nurses’ skills, six studies in the meta-analysis showed a significant, but small effect in favour of simulation (SMD -1.09, CI -1.72 to -0.47). There was large heterogeneity (I² 85%). For the other comparisons, there was large between-study variation in results. The quality of evidence for all comparisons was graded as low. Conclusion: The effect of simulation-based training varies substantially between studies. Our meta analysis showed a significant effect of simulation training compared to other learning strategies, but the quality of evidence was low indicating uncertainty. Other comparisons showed inconsistency in results. Based on our findings simulation training appears to be an effective strategy to improve nurses’ skills, but further good-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are needed.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevieren
dc.relation.ispartofseriesNurse Education Today;Volume 54, July 2017
dc.rights© 2018. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectSimulationsen
dc.subjectClinical competenceen
dc.subjectQuality improvementsen
dc.subjectNursesen
dc.subjectKnowledgeen
dc.subjectSkillsen
dc.titleSimulation-based training for nurses: systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2019-03-11T13:07:44Z
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.04.004
dc.identifier.cristin1466168
dc.identifier.cristin1466168
dc.source.journalNurse Education Today


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2018. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2018. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.