Improving the Use of Simulation in Nursing Education: Protocol for a Realist Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nursing education has evolved in line with societal needs, and simulation-based learning (SBL) is increasingly being used to bridge the gap between practice and education. Previous literature reviews have demonstrated the effectiveness of using SBL in nursing education. However, there is a need to explore how and why it works to expand the theoretical foundation of SBL. Realist reviews are a theory-based approach to synthesizing existing evidence on how complex programs work in particular contexts or settings. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to understand how, why, and in what circumstances the use of simulation affects learning as part of the bachelor's program in nursing. METHODS: A realist review will be conducted in accordance with the realist template for a systematic review. In particular, we will identify and explore the underlying assumption of how SBL is supposed to work, that is, identify and explore program theories of SBL. The review will be carried out as an iterative process of searching, appraising, and synthesizing the evidence to uncover theoretical concepts that explain the causal effects of SBL. In the final section of the review, we will involve stakeholders in the Norwegian community in a web-based Delphi survey to ensure that the emerging theoretical framework derived from the published literature aligns with stakeholders' experience in practice. RESULTS: The Norwegian Centre for Research Data (project number 60415) has approved the study. We have performed an initial literature search, whereas quality appraisal and data extraction are ongoing processes. CONCLUSIONS: The final outcome of the review is anticipated to extend the theoretical foundation for using simulation as an integrated component of the bachelor's program in nursing. Furthermore, the findings will be used to produce a briefing document containing guidance for national stakeholders in the community of simulation-based nursing education. Finally, the review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal as well as national and international conferences. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16363.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.132 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".