Background: Immersive 360° video provides consistent demonstrations of clinical procedures. We compared an immersive-video program with conventional simulation, each followed by a common hands-on seminar. Methods: Thirty-two teaching subgroups were randomized 1:1. Of 443 consenting second-year nursing students, 442 were analyzed (222 virtual reality [VR]; 220 control). The four-hour first session addressed urinary, nasogastric and rectal catheterization through faculty demonstrations in 360°, questions, feedback and Plus/Delta debriefing without physical practice in VR, or live demonstration and practice on part-task trainers in control. One week later, both arms attended the same four-hour seminar with theory, practice, a three-station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scored independently by two blinded assessors, and a 30-item knowledge test. Knowledge was reassessed four weeks after Session 1. Within the VR arm, an exploratory paired analysis compared satisfaction with previous VR experiences and with the study seminar. Linear models accounted for clustering by teaching subgroup; item-level analyses were exploratory. Results: Mean composite OSCE scores were 87.33 ± 5.05 in the VR arm and 70.70 ± 8.51 in the control arm, on a 0–100 scale. The age- and sex-adjusted difference was 16.65 points (95% CI 14.37–18.94; wild cluster bootstrap, p < 0.001). Performance scores favored VR across all three procedures. Knowledge scores, on a 0–30 scale, were 19.02 ± 2.84 versus 14.12 ± 3.78 immediately after the common seminar and 19.45 ± 2.75 versus 15.21 ± 3.83 four weeks after Session 1. The unadjusted between-arm difference at four weeks was 4.24 points (cluster-robust 95% CI 3.24–5.24). Exploratory item-level analyses favored VR on ten checklist items, whereas material preparation favored control. Within the VR arm, satisfaction with the study seminar was higher than with previous VR experiences. Conclusions: Immersive 360° video with questions and debriefing, followed by hands-on practice, improved simulated procedural performance compared with conventional training. The findings support this blended sequence, not replacement of physical practice or an isolated effect of immersion. Knowledge outcomes require caution because of measurement limitations. Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered on the Open Science Framework on 6 July 2026: 10.17605/OSF.IO/T5JSW.

Background/Objectives: Similarities have been identified between the dependence on psychoactive substances and the patterns of use of cosmetic products. However, there is no specific scale for identifying a substance-related disorders in cosmetic addiction. In this way, the aim of this study was to conduct a preliminary validation of Cosmetic Addiction Scale (CAS) in order to identify signs of addiction to cosmetic products, describing its prevalence and analysing their concordance with a modified version Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener test (mCAGE). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with sample of 224 university students (80 % women, age range 19-68 years). The mCAGE and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) criteria were modified to evaluate participants for a substance-related disorder in cosmetic addiction. Sociodemographic characteristics and cosmetics use were evaluated. Results: Results showed a 16.1 % met modified CAGE criteria, 38 % met modified DSM-V criteria, 7% of serious nature and with differences related by gender, being more prevalent in women. No differences by age were found. A 12.1 % of the subjects were detected as putative addicts in both scales. Results from both instruments were significantly associated (rho = 0.51, p < 0.001). Modified DSM-V criteria obtained a robust validity and intern coherence of 0.77 for the detection of cosmetic addiction. Conclusions: A type of symptomatology involving cosmetic addiction is pointed out. CAS showed as an useful and adequate psychometric tool for detecting cosmetic usage as a type of substance-related disorder.