What question did this study set out to answer?

January 16, 2026Journal of Clinical Nursing0 citationsOpen Access

Effects of High‐Fidelity Simulation Training on Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction for Practising Registered Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

JZJie ZhouNanyang Normal University GZGuowen ZhangChinese Academy of Sciences PSPeige SongCentre for Global Health Research

Key Points

The aim is to evaluate the impact of high-fidelity simulation training on learning outcomes and satisfaction among practising registered nurses.
Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from various databases.
Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experiments comparing high-fidelity simulation with traditional methods.
Assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools and calculated standardized mean differences.
Identified eight eligible studies involving 275 nurses: five RCTs and three quasi-experiments.
High-fidelity simulation significantly improved knowledge acquisition (SMD = 0.65), professional skills (SMD = 0.72), and learning satisfaction (SMD = 1.24).
The effect on self-confidence was marginally insignificant (SMD = 0.59).

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Ample evidence has shown the benefit of high‐fidelity simulation (HFS) in promoting learning in pre‐licensure nursing students, but the evidence for practising registered nurses has not been synthesised. Objective To evaluate the effects of HFS training on learning outcomes and satisfaction in practising registered nurses. Methods In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for studies published in English or Chinese from database inception to 31 May 2023 (updated on 20 April 2025). All randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi‐experiments that compared HFS training with traditional methods (e.g., lecture) for practising registered nurses and reported learning outcomes and satisfaction were included. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) and non‐randomised trials (ROBINS‐I). Inverse‐variance random‐effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline. Results Of 1404 records, eight eligible studies (five RCTs and three quasi‐experiments) involving 275 practising nurses were identified. Two RCTs had high risk of bias, while others showed some concerns or moderate risk of bias. Meta‐analyses showed that HFS could promote knowledge acquisition (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.35, 0.95, p < 0.01, I 2 = 0%), professional skills (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.41, 1.04, p < 0.01, I 2 = 0%) and learning satisfaction (SMD = 1.24, 95% CI, 0.35, 2.13, p < 0.01; I 2 = 67%), compared with traditional methods. The pooled effect on self‐confidence was marginally insignificant (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI, −0.04, 1.22, p = 0.07; I 2 = 67%). Conclusion Compared with traditional training methods, HFS is effective in promoting knowledge acquisition, professional skills and learning satisfaction and may enhance self‐confidence among practising nurses. To strengthen the evidence base, more rigorous RCTs with larger sample sizes, adequate reporting of HFS design, and standardised outcome measures are warranted. Protocol Registration PROSPERO (CRD42022358717). No Patient or Public Contribution.

问 AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper