To explore the effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation (HFS) in undergraduate nursing education. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiment. Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WANFANG, and CNKI were searched for eligible articles published in English and Chinese until May 28, 2021. The Quality Appraisal Check-list for Quantitative Intervention Studies was applied to the quality evaluation. Standard mean differences (SMD) were pooled using a random effects model. The results of the individual and combined intervention effects estimation of was displayed in a forest plot, with weight, SMD, its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), Z-test, p, I². Thirty-eight studies were included and 37 were analyzed. High-fidelity simulation (HFS) revealed significantly larger effect sizes for knowledge (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI [0.54 to 1.23]), skill (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI [0.69 to 1.17]), collaboration (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI [0.26 to 0.78]), caring (SMD = 1.40, 95% CI [0.23 to 2.58]) and learning interest (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI [0.00 to 2.04]) when compared with other teaching methods. However, no significant difference between HFS and other teaching methods in critical thinking (SMD = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.12 to 1.58]), self-confidence (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.32 to 0.75]) and learning satisfaction (SMD = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.25 to 1.41]) was shown. High-fidelity simulation (HFS) can more effectively cultivate knowledge, skills, collaboration, caring, and learning interest of undergraduate nursing students. Since the effect of HFS is equivalent to other teaching methods in cultivating undergraduate nursing students' critical thinking, self-confidence and learning satisfaction, nursing educators can choose the most appropriate methods to achieve the intended learning outcomes according to the actual situation.

Background: Education in nursing has noticed a positive effect of simulation-based education. There are many studies available on the effects of simulation-based education, but most of those involve a single institution, nonrandomized controlled trials, small sample sizes and subjective evaluations of the effects. The purpose of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effects of high-fidelity simulation, computer-based simulation, high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation, and case study on undergraduate nursing students. Methods: A total of 270 nursing students were recruited from five universities in China. Participants were randomly divided into four groups at each institution: the high-fidelity simulation group, the computer-based simulation group, the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group, and the case study group. Finally, 239 participants completed the intervention and evaluation, with 58, 67, 57, and 57 participants in each group. The data were collected at three stages: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and three months after the intervention. Results: The demographic data and baseline evaluation indices did not significantly differ among the four groups. A statistically significant difference was not observed between the four methods for improving knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, or interest in learning. While skill improvement differed significantly among the different groups after the intervention (p = 0.020), after three months, no difference was observed (p = 0.139). The improvement in skill in the computer-based simulation group was significantly lower at the end of the intervention than that in the high-fidelity simulation group (p = 0.048) or the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group (p = 0.020). Conclusions: Nursing students benefit equally from four methods in cultivating their knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, and interest in learning both immediately and over time. High-fidelity simulation and high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation improve skill more effectively than computer-based simulation in the short term. Nursing educators can select the most suitable teaching method to achieve the intended learning outcomes depending on the specific circumstances. Trial registration: This clinical trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (clinical trial number: ChiCTR2400084880, date of the registration: 27/05/2024).

The high-fidelity simulation (HFS) has been utilized in nursing education for more than 20 years. Advantages of the use of high-fidelity simulation in nursing education have been documented in the literature. Based on the advantages, it has been arranged as a part of the clinical study course of the first year baccalaureate nursing program in one of the nursing colleges in Macau recently. The aim of this study is to explore undergraduate nursing students' perception of using high-fidelity simulation as part of their clinical study course in Macau. This is a qualitative study using open-ended questionnaire. This study was implemented at the nursing laboratory between 1 April and 17 April 2015, which was the period of preliminary clinical study course of year one nursing students. A purposive sample was sought from the voluntary year one undergraduate nursing students who participated in the clinical study course. Students received two high-fidelity simulation sections during the course, while a self-administered open-ended questionnaire was allocated afterward. Qualitative content analysis was performed after data collection. Two themes emerged in this study, which included "appreciation" and "misunderstanding". They were further divided into five categories; as "positive feelings", "gaining a suitable atmosphere for learning", "assist of adequate emergency preparation: resourceful ability", "contempt", and "rote learning". This was the first time to utilize HFS activities as a part of the clinical study course in one nursing college in Macau. These HFS activities instead of a part of real clinical placement were appreciated by nursing students. And it mainly contributed to the resourceful ability in students' view. During the HFS activities, nursing educators should consider the misunderstanding of HFS activities of students that a few nursing students despised simulator's life and got rote learning method.

To explore the effects of different lengths of the three key steps (prebriefing, simulation, and debriefing) of high-fidelity simulation (HFS) on the knowledge and skills of undergraduate nursing students. A systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was conducted for Chinese and English publications from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and two Chinese databases (Wanfang and CNKI) up to November 24, 2021. Two independent raters screened the retrieved studies and extracted data based on a coding protocol from the studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data were synthesized using meta-analytic procedures based on a random-effect model and computing effect sizes by standard mean differences (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Forty-four studies were included, and 23 studies were analyzed. High-fidelity simulation (HFS) with debriefing of 10 min or less (SMD = 1.18), simulation of 15-20 min (SMD = 1.43), and debriefing of 11-30 min (SMD = 1.19) showed larger effect sizes for knowledge, while HFS with debriefing of >10 min (SMD = 0.91), simulation of 15 min or less (SMD = 0.89), and over 30 min of debriefing cultivation (SMD = 0.84) showed larger effect sizes for skill. During the prebriefing, simulation, and debriefing, shorter sessions are more effective for improving knowledge in BSN students, whereas longer sessions are most effective for improving skills in BSN students. Nurse educators can schedule HFS to meet the expectations of learning outcomes based on the actual situation.