Forfattere: Doolen J, Mariani B, Atz T, O’Rourke J, McAfee K, Cross CL

År: 2016

Kilde: Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(7):290–302

Sammendrag:

The purpose of this focused review was to provide an overview of existing high-fidelity simulation reviews in undergraduate nursing education. ​Over the last 10 years, there has been a substantial increase in the use of high-fidelity simulation in undergraduate nursing education. Six reviewers conducted a systematic literature search on existing reviews of high-fidelity simulation and undergraduate nursing education from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2015. Using a comprehensive search of literature databases and hand searches, a total of 34 reviews were initially selected for full review with seven reviews included in the final analysis after rereview of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Findings from simulation research and reviews revealed significant differences in design and assessment methods leading to a wide variety of measurement outcomes and a variety of limitations. Of the seven reviews, five were integrative reviews and two were reviews of the literature. No meta-analysis or systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. The review suggests a need for methodologically sound research that translates simulation outcomes to future performance and practice. Findings from the review support the multitude of challenges in simulation research including a lack of funding, a lack of simulation training for faculty and staff, and a lack of support for faculty conducting simulation research. Limitations of prior studies include weak designs, mixed samples, and a lack of valid and reliable evaluation tools.

DOI / Lenke: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.01.009

Metodisk kvalitetsvurdering:

Denne systematiske oversikten over systematiske oversikter er tilsynelatende utarbeidet på en god måte og forfatterne har vært forholdsvis tydelig på metoden de har brukt for å utarbeide oversikten. De har en tydelig tabell og beskrivelse av inklusjons- og eksklusjonskriterier og praktiserer disse kriteriene strengt. Det er uklart hvorfor de ekskluderer systematiske oversikter gjennomført før 2009. Forfatterne beskriver i liten grad de ulike stegene i søkeprosessen ut over et illustrerende diagram. Det foretas en metodologisk vurdering av de inkluderte studiene.