Virtual simulation in nursing education in Latin America and the Caribbean: A bibliometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 1) Virtual simulation connects theory and practice in nursing education.(2) Only Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Cuba conducted research on the subject. (3) Brazilian journals lead scientific production on virtual simulation. (4) Scientific production on the subject has increased. OBJECTIVE: to examine the characteristics of scientific production in Latin America and the Caribbean regarding virtual simulation in nursing education. METHOD: a bibliometric study conducted in five stages: research design, compiling the bibliometric data, analysis, visualization, and interpretation; and based on the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Bibliometric Analysis (PRIBA). The search was conducted in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). VOSviewer version 1.6.20 was used for bibliometric analysis. Bradford's and Zipf's Laws were applied to interpret the data, considering the temporal dynamics of publications, an analytical approach to the structure of the selected studies and their repercussions in virtual simulation in nursing education in Latin America and the Caribbean. RESULTS: 579 studies were identified, of which 46 were included in the final sample. The studies included were published between 1994 and 2022, and only Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Cuba conducted research related to virtual simulation. The semantic map resulted in five clusters, highlighting "simulation training" as the most important term. CONCLUSION: our findings suggest a projected increase in Scholarly publications on virtual simulation in nursing education in Latin America and the Caribbean in the coming years.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".