Innovation and Restructuring of Laboratory and Clinical Simulation in Undergraduate Nursing Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic forced nursing education institutions to abruptly shift away from traditional in-person learning and find alternative approaches to fulfill program requirements. This integrative review explores the various innovative and restructured simulation strategies used by undergraduate nursing programs for lab and clinical courses in response to the pandemic. Methods Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five-step framework guided this review. A systematic search of six academic databases and quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool yielded 10 studies for the review. Results Strategies identified primarily employed virtual simulation methods using avatars or real people. Additional approaches included flipcharts and simulation-based flipped classrooms. Key themes pertaining to language and culture, immersion, facilitation and skills emerged. Conclusion Virtual simulation was a valuable tool during the pandemic, though not without challenges. Future implications are discussed. This review highlights the need for standardized terminology and considerations for cultural diversity in simulation. Additionally, further research into the effectiveness of virtual simulation as a replacement for in-person nursing clinical and lab experiences is warranted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it