Mixed Reality in Undergraduate Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Benefits and Challenges
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: Nursing Schools are incorporating Mixed Reality (MR) into student training to enable them to confront challenging or infrequently encountered scenarios in their practice and ensure their preparedness. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and challenges of implementing MR in nursing curricula. Materials and Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, WOS, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between 2011 and 2023. The search strategy used was “(nurses OR nurse OR nursing) AND mixed reality AND simulation”. Inclusion criteria required that studies focus on undergraduate nursing students and be written in English or Spanish. Exclusion criteria included reviews, bibliometric studies, and articles that did not separately report undergraduate nursing student results. Quality was evaluated with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was conducted on studies with control groups to compare MR’s effectiveness against traditional teaching methods. Results: Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. MR was widely used to improve clinical judgment, patient safety, technical skill acquisition, and student confidence. The meta-analysis found that MR reduced anxiety (Cohen’s d = −0.73, p < 0.001). However, its impact on knowledge acquisition and skill development was inconsistent. There was no improvement over traditional methods (p = 0.466 and p = 0.840). Despite positive qualitative findings, methodological variability, small sample sizes, and publication bias contributed to mixed quantitative results. The main challenges were cybersickness, usability, high costs, and limited institutional access to MR technology. Conclusions: Although MR can help nursing education by decreasing students’ anxiety, its efficacy remains inconclusive. Future research should use larger, randomized controlled trials to validate MR’s role in nursing education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it