To synthesize existing knowledge on the phenomenon of cybersickness and discomfort associated with the use of HMDs in delivering fully immersive VR experiences within educational contexts. Virtual reality (VR) plays an increasingly important role in education; however, head-mounted displays (HMDs) may trigger cybersickness and discomfort. A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42024583656) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were searched to identify primary studies in English or Italian, published from 2013 to 2024. Twenty-five studies were included. Ad hoc questionnaires followed by the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire and the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire were mainly used to detect cybersickness. In 12 studies, inconsistent or very low scores of cybersickness were reported. Oculomotor disturbances were the most frequently documented negative effects, followed by disorientation. Discomfort was assessed in eight studies, mainly with ad hoc questionnaires, with five of them reporting inconsistent or minimal discomfort. Students and professionals should be informed about the possibility of some adverse effects, especially if they undertake daily activities after the educational sessions (e.g. oculomotor issues and driving).

Introduction: Pressure injuries (PIs) are a significant issue in healthcare system: nursing students are recommended to be prepared to assess the risk, prevent and manage them. However, despite the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected nursing students’ learning opportunities no data regarding their impact of PIs knowledge, attitudes and learning occasions have been documented to date. Aims: To describe the post-pandemic knowledge and attitudes regarding PI prevention and management and to compare clinical learning opportunities in the field of PIs before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: A descriptive multi-method study involving students at the time of their graduation in the before (n = 114) and after the pandemic (n = 113). The Italian versions of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT-IT) and Attitude Toward Pressure Ulcer Prevention (APuP-IT) scales were used. Data regarding pre- and post-pandemic learning opportunities were retrospectively collected from the Student Portfolio of Skills. Results: The average PUKAT-IT score was 57.92 % (cut-off 60 %), which indicates insufficient knowledge; the average APuP-IT score was 78.19 % (cut-off 75 %), which shows positive attitudes towards PI. Comparing the pre- and the post-pandemic groups, learning opportunities in PI risk assessment and prevention significantly decreased (overall 38.90 vs 32.27 and 35.26 vs 25.97, respectively) while those regarding the PI management remained stable. Conclusion: In the post-pandemic times, nursing students' knowledge about PIs remains insufficient while their attitudes are adequate; the pandemic significantly reduced students’ exposure to prevention and assessment learning opportunities during their internship, which suggests a need to update educational strategies to ensure appropriate knowledge and learning experiences in this field.

Background/Objectives: Several Italian regions have started to introduce the Family and Community Nurse model. The aim of this study was to describe the facilitating and hindering factors that have influenced the implementation of the model by analyzing regional policies from the perspective of nurses appointed as Family and Community Nurses. Methods: A qualitative study from 2023 to 2024 following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Nurses attending a training course were eligible (N = 68) and multi-method data collection was used. Mandatory written project works were requested at the end of the course, and interviews conducted after six months with 14 purposively selected nurses were used. The data were subjected to content analysis. The factors identified were categorized by level (nurse, microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem) and by the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: A total of 23 facilitating factors and 20 hindering factors were identified across all levels and four domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implementation required nurses to shift from a task-oriented to a user-oriented approach to care that emphasizes accountability and citizen needs. Facilitating factors were the availability of advanced competencies, digital skills, familiarity with communities, and effective teamwork supported by leaders. Challenges arose from fragmented systems and unmet community expectations. Strengthening cross-sector collaboration, fostering trust, and engaging third sector resources were critical factors hindering holistic, patient-centred care. Conclusions: The Family and Community Nurses model promotes integrated, patient-centred care through proactive approaches that require advanced competence and interprofessional collaboration. Training, leadership support, and the removal of systemic barriers are critical. Future research should focus on integrating the identified factors into strategies to optimize the implementation of the Family and Community Nurses model.

Background: Nurses report that they often must perform activities outside their area of expertise, referred to as “non-nursing tasks”. The time spent on simple tasks undermines nursing capacity, which is already challenged by the dramatic shortage of nurses. Performing non-nursing tasks affects nurses’ satisfaction and their intention to stay. However, despite their relevance, there is no summary of studies on non-nursing tasks. The aim of this study is to summarize available evidence on characteristics of non-nursing tasks, their antecedents, and consequences, to identify gaps in the existing literature and to make recommendations for management, education, practice, and nursing research. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted using Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, and the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and research framework will be used to report and summarize the findings. Results: Findings will provide a map regarding the main patterns of research in this area and the evidence produced to date. Two main lines of findings are expected, namely the conceptual and the empirical. The former may contribute to the understanding of the terminology and concept used so far to clearly express non-nursing tasks; the empirical evidence may shed light on frequencies, instruments, reasons, and effects. Discussion: An analysis of non-nursing tasks will provide healthcare organizations with a conceptual framework of all variations in the phenomenon and will help managers to identify the activities that will fall within this conceptual construct. The establishment of a research strand in this field, based on a science-based review involving international stakeholders, can strengthen global action to prevent the occurrence of non-nursing tasks.

Introduction: The production of science is characterized by socio‐political and technological forces that influence what knowledge is produced. In this context, empty reviews have received little attention, with debate ranging over the pros and cons of their publication. However, their dissemination may improve the ability to recognize and prioritize research gaps. The main aim of the study was to map empty reviews published in nursing science. Materials and Methods: A scoping review in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley, Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework database in April 2025. Four databases and grey literature were searched; there were eligible scoping or systematic reviews defined as “empty” in the field of nursing. A modified framework of Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations was used to summarize the extracted data. Results: Fifteen empty reviews were identified. In terms of Patterns, the empty reviews were mainly published in high‐income countries over the last 10 years and related to clinical practise and outcomes, education and training, organizational and human resources, and approaches to maternity care, mental health, and nursing education. In general, reporting guidelines were used, while funding was not documented. In terms of Recommendations, more primary studies, the development of tools and the strategic use of empty reviews to inform the funding and research agenda were suggested. Linking Evidence to Action: Empty reviews in nursing may indicate neglected or emerging areas that can help orient research agendas to ensure equity‐oriented priorities and reduce the marginalization of under‐investigated topics. Recognizing empty reviews as legitimate scholarly outputs supports transparent mapping of knowledge gaps, helping funders, institutions, and research programs direct resources to under‐investigated areas. Dedicated registries that publicly report empty reviews, establish minimum reporting standards, and require explicit keywords in titles and abstracts would improve transparency and accessibility, and stimulate targeted primary research that can turn “empty” areas into active inquiry. From this perspective, empty reviews may attract research investment rather than be seen as methodological failures.

Nursing and midwifery students are frequently exposed to physical restraint during clinical training, often presented as necessary for patient safety. However, growing evidence challenges this assumption, highlighting the risks associated with restraint and the limited implementation of effective alternatives in practice. Studies show that alternatives are considered in only a minority of cases, while organisational and educational factors contribute to the persistence and normalisation of restraint. Although professional codes define restraint as an exceptional, last-resort measure, this principle is not consistently reflected in practice or education. Students may experience moral distress and cognitive dissonance when witnessing practices that conflict with core values such as patient autonomy and dignity. At the same time, hierarchical dynamics, obedience to authority, and the influence of the hidden curriculum and professional socialisation may inhibit critical reflection, foster passive compliance, and contribute to the normalisation of ethically problematic care. Despite these implications, nursing and midwifery curricula often provide limited opportunities to explicitly address restraint, its ethical complexity, and the development of moral sensitivity. This discussion paper explores how educational strategies can support students to critically engage with restraint practices encountered during clinical placements and to develop both moral sensitivity and ethical agency. It highlights the importance of cultivating moral sensitivity through reflection, simulation, and experiential and digital learning, enabling students to recognise ethical dilemmas, question routine practices, and advocate for patients. Educational approaches should also promote the application of evidence-based alternatives to restraint, including person-centred interventions such as pain management, environmental adaptations, de-escalation strategies, and the involvement of family members or volunteers. Ultimately, nursing and midwifery education should prepare future professionals to recognise when routine clinical practices have been normalised despite being ethically problematic, to question their legitimacy critically, and to advocate for humane, dignified, restraint-free care.