ABSTRACT Introduction Realistic simulation, including standardized patients, virtual reality and hybrid modalities, offers immersive and risk‐free environments for psychiatric training, yet its impact on learner outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review assesses how realistic simulation influences knowledge, skills and confidence in psychiatric education for healthcare students and professionals in medicine and nursing. Methods We followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines to search, screen and analyse articles in BVS, Embase, PUBMED and Scopus databases through 15 April 2025. We included quantitative studies with control groups that evaluated active, realistic simulation interventions in psychiatry. Four reviewers independently screened, extracted data and applied the JBI's critical appraisal tools, according to each study design to assess the trustworthiness, relevance and results of the published papers. Results Of 7690 records, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Interventions spanned standardized patient encounters, video‐based mental status exams, 360° lived‐experience immersions, virtual‐reality self‐harm scenarios and cross‐professional OSCEs. Most studies reported significant improvements versus traditional methods in diagnostic reasoning, clinical assessment, communication, empathy and self‐reported confidence; one pilot found no between‐group differences despite positive learner feedback. All studies clearly described instruments and objectives, 50% employed randomized or matched controls, 100% targeted student learning, 88% discussed limitations and 75% detailed applicability to medical curricula. Conclusion Realistic simulation enhances multiple competencies in psychiatric education but is hampered by methodological heterogeneity and limited controlled designs. Standardized outcome measures, longitudinal follow‐up and exploration of emerging modalities are needed to optimize and validate their role in mental health training.
Passos et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: