Virtual versus face-to-face clinical simulation in relation to student knowledge, anxiety, and self-confidence in maternal-newborn nursing: A randomized controlled trial. (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cobbett, Shelley; Snelgrove-Clarke, Erna
• Is Part Of: Nurse education today. Volume 45(2016)
• Page Start: 179
• Page End: 184
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: Randomized controlled trial -- Simulation -- Maternal child -- Critical thinking -- Nursing -- Students; Nursing -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Education, Nursing -- Periodicals; Soins infirmiers -- Étude et enseignement -- Périodiques; Nursing -- Study and teaching; Periodicals; 610.7307
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0260-6917

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Clinical simulations can provide students with realistic clinical learning environments to increase their knowledge, self-confidence, and decrease their anxiety prior to entering clinical practice settings. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of two maternal newborn clinical simulation scenarios; virtual clinical simulation and face-to-face high fidelity manikin simulation. Design: Randomized pretest-posttest design. Setting: A public research university in Canada. Participants: Fifty-six third year Bachelor of Science in Nursing students. Methods: Participants were randomized to either face-to-face or virtual clinical simulation and then to dyads for completion of two clinical simulations. Measures included: (1) Nursing Anxiety and Self-Confidence with Clinical Decision Making Scale (NASC-CDM) (White, 2011), (2) knowledge pretest and post-test related to preeclampsia and group B strep, and (3) Simulation Completion Questionnaire. Before and after each simulation students completed a knowledge test and the NASC-CDM and the Simulation Completion Questionnaire at study completion. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in student knowledge and self-confidence between face-to-face and virtual clinical simulations. Anxiety scores were higher for students in the virtual clinical simulation than for those in the face-to-face simulation. Students' self-reported preference was face-to-face citing the similarities to practicing in a 'real' situation and the immediate debrief. Students not liking the virtual clinical simulation most often cited technological issues as their rationale. Conclusions: Given the equivalency of knowledge and self-confidence when undergraduate nursing students participate in either maternal newborn clinical scenarios of face-to-face or virtual clinical simulation identified in this trial, it is important to take into the consideration costs and benefits/risks of simulation implementation. Highlights: Virtual clinical simulations may be a useful method to bridge the theory to practice gap and increase student readiness for clinical practice. Recent evidence demonstrates positive benefits of high-fidelity simulation with up to 50% of clinical practice replaced with simulation. No significant differences were found in student knowledge or self-confidence levels between a face-to-face high fidelity and a virtual clinical simulation Students' self-reported anxiety levels were higher when participating in virtual clinical simulations. Students' preferred the face-to-face simulation verses the virtual clinical simulation, mainly related to technological issues.