Educational TechnologyNCT04940455
Effect of Realistic Simulation and Digital Educational Platforms for Learning Nursing Student
A study testing Educational digital platforms in people with Educational Technology, run by University of Brasilia.
Trial summary
Teaching modalities that integrate digital educational technologies, such as educational games, dummies and simulated environments, develop critical thinking in students, the absorption of significant learning and the consequent reduction in the exposure of patients to the damage associated with health care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Educational Technology
- What is being tested?
- Educational digital platforms
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2021to Sep 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Aged over 18 years;
- Students approved in the discipline related to nursing care for adult and elderly patients.
Who cannot join
- Students who actively work in the scenario of patient care in critical and risk situations; Members of the Realistic Health Simulation League; Students with previous training in the health area (nursing technicians, firefighters, among others) ; Participants who for some reason are absent from one of the project stages.
- -
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: Effect of Realistic Simulation and Digital Educational Platforms for Learning Nursing Student: Randomized Clinical Trial
Teaching modalities that integrate digital educational technologies, such as educational games, dummies and simulated environments, develop critical thinking in students, the absorption of significant learning and the consequent reduction in the exposure of patients to the damage associated with health care. Thus, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of simulation strategies and digital educational platforms in the teaching-learning process, in self-confidence and its implications for the physiological variables and stressful feelings of undergraduate nursing students. Our hypothesis is that students submitted to the use of digital platforms will present lower levels of self-efficacy, capacity for clinical judgment and retention of knowledge when compared to those who were submitted to the simulation strategy.
Read the detailed description
The study will be carried out in the simulation laboratory of two Higher Education Institutions, one public and the other private in the city of Brasília, Brazil. The sample will consist of 100 students randomized into an experimental group (n=50) and a control group (n=50). Students enrolled in the undergraduate nursing course, aged 18 years or over, will be eligible; have minimal approval in a discipline related to the content of "Nursing Care for Adult Patients". Students who work actively in the scenario of patient care in critical and risk situations will be excluded; members of the Academic League of Realistic Health Simulation and those with prior training in the health field. It is expected that nursing students, through active and innovative strategies, will be able to obtain and retain greater knowledge, raise levels of self-efficacy and clinical judgment, for their performance in clinical practice.
- Conditions
- Educational Technology
- Being tested
- Educational digital platforms
- Keywords
- Educational Technology, Simulation Training, "Learning", Learning Curve, Active Learning, Nursing
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Educational digital platformsOther
The digital educational platforms will be implemented through games of questions and answers, simulated cases sent via google forms about the nurse's performance in a critical care unit facing the patient with signs and symptoms of sepsis. The questions in the games will aim to develop clinical judgment and quick decision-making in nursing students in order not to compromise the health care of the patient in sepsis.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Educational digital platforms | Experimental | Nursing students from the Experimental Group (GE), will participate in educational activities made available on digital platforms on "nursing care for patients with signs and symptoms of sepsis" Receives: Other: Educational digital platforms |
| High-Fidelity Simulation | Active comparator | Nursing students in the Control Group (GC) will be exposed to high-fidelity simulation in the intensive care setting, where they must solve situations and procedures related to the nurse's performance in recognizing the signs and symptoms of sepsis. Receives: Other: Educational digital platforms |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Cognitive Performance (Baseline)
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Measured: Applied before the intervention
Cognitive Performance (Post-Test)
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Measured: Applied immediately after the intervention
Cognitive Performance (Retention over time)
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Measured: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Cognitive Performance (Retention over time)
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Measured: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Clinical Judgment (Baseline)
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR)- Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points.
Measured: Applied before the intervention
Clinical Judgment
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) - Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points .
Measured: Applied immediately after the intervention
Clinical Judgment
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) - Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points.
Measured: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Clinical Judgment
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) - Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points .
Measured: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Self-efficacy (Baseline)
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Measured: Applied before the intervention
Self-efficacy
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Measured: Applied immediately after the intervention
Self-efficacy
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Measured: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Self-efficacy
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Measured: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Secondary outcomes (4)
Student stress (Baseline)
Assessment of the intensity of stress among nursing students caused by pedagogical strategies: high-fidelity simulation and digital educational platforms. The questionnaire will be applied. It consists of 31 items and the answers are Likert type, scored from 0 to 3, depending on the degree of concern it generates for the student, as follows: nothing (0), a little (1), a lot (2) and extremely ( 3).
Measured: Before the intervention
Student stress
Assessment of the intensity of stress among nursing students caused by pedagogical strategies: high-fidelity simulation and digital educational platforms. The questionnaire will be applied. It consists of 31 items and the answers are Likert type, scored from 0 to 3, depending on the degree of concern it generates for the student, as follows: nothing (0), a little (1), a lot (2) and extremely ( 3).
Measured: Applied immediately after the intervention
Student stress
Assessment of the intensity of stress among nursing students caused by pedagogical strategies: high-fidelity simulation and digital educational platforms. The questionnaire will be applied. It consists of 31 items and the answers are Likert type, scored from 0 to 3, depending on the degree of concern it generates for the student, as follows: nothing (0), a little (1), a lot (2) and extremely ( 3).
Measured: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Student stress
Assessment of the intensity of stress among nursing students caused by pedagogical strategies: high-fidelity simulation and digital educational platforms. The questionnaire will be applied. It consists of 31 items and the answers are Likert type, scored from 0 to 3, depending on the degree of concern it generates for the student, as follows: nothing (0), a little (1), a lot (2) and extremely ( 3).
Measured: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Jun 2021
- Study startSep 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completionMar 2022 (estimated)
- Study completionSep 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Educational TechnologyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Brasilia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Marcia Cristina da Silva Magro, University of Brasilia
- Investigators
- Marcia CS Magro, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Brasilia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04940455
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 28233120.4.0000.0030
- Status last verified
- Jun 2021
- First submitted
- 17 Jun 2021
- Last updated
- 28 Jun 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Silveira MS, Cogo ALP. The contributions of digital technologies in the teaching of nursing skills: an integrative review. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2017 Jul 13;38(2):e66204. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2017.02.66204. English, Portuguese.
PubMed 28723986Basak T, Unver V, Moss J, Watts P, Gaioso V. Beginning and advanced students' perceptions of the use of low- and high-fidelity mannequins in nursing simulation. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Jan;36:37-43. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.07.020. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
PubMed 26282193Cogo ALP, Lopes EFDS, Perdomini FRI, Flores GE, Santos MRRD. Building and developing realistic simulation scenarios on safe drug administration. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2019 Jan 10;40(spe):e20180175. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2019.20180175. English, Portuguese.
PubMed 30652802Valentin B, Grottke O, Skorning M, Bergrath S, Fischermann H, Rortgen D, Mennig MT, Fitzner C, Muller MP, Kirschbaum C, Rossaint R, Beckers SK. Cortisol and alpha-amylase as stress response indicators during pre-hospital emergency medicine training with repetitive high-fidelity simulation and scenarios with standardized patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Apr 8;23:31. doi: 10.1186/s13049-015-0110-6.
PubMed 25887044McGuire K, Lorenz R. Effect of Simulation on Learner Stress as Measured by Cortisol: An Integrative Review. Nurse Educ. 2018 Jan/Feb;43(1):45-49. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000393.
PubMed 28538244Fraser K, McLaughlin K. Temporal pattern of emotions and cognitive load during simulation training and debriefing. Med Teach. 2019 Feb;41(2):184-189. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1459531. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
PubMed 29687734Nieto Fernandez-Pacheco A, Castro Delgado R, Arcos Gonzalez P, Navarro Fernandez JL, Ceron Madrigal JJ, Juguera Rodriguez L, Perez Alonso N, Armero-Barranco D, Lidon Lopez Iborra M, Damian ET, Pardo Rios M. Analysis of performance and stress caused by a simulation of a mass casualty incident. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Mar;62:52-57. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.016. Epub 2017 Dec 15.
PubMed 29291462Mohammadi G, Tourdeh M, Ebrahimian A. Effect of simulation-based training method on the psychological health promotion in operating room students during the educational internship. J Educ Health Promot. 2019 Sep 30;8:172. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_106_19. eCollection 2019.
PubMed 31867357de Sena DP, Fabricio DD, da Silva VD, Bodanese LC, Franco AR. Comparative evaluation of video-based on-line course versus serious game for training medical students in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomised trial. PLoS One. 2019 Apr 8;14(4):e0214722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214722. eCollection 2019.
PubMed 30958836Blanie A, Amorim MA, Meffert A, Perrot C, Dondelli L, Benhamou D. Assessing validity evidence for a serious game dedicated to patient clinical deterioration and communication. Adv Simul (Lond). 2020 May 27;5:4. doi: 10.1186/s41077-020-00123-3. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 32514382Fonseca LM, Aredes ND, Fernandes AM, Batalha LM, Apostolo JM, Martins JC, Rodrigues MA. Computer and laboratory simulation in the teaching of neonatal nursing: innovation and impact on learning. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016 Oct 10;24:e2808. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.1005.2808.
PubMed 27737376
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Jun 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of Realistic Simulation and Digital Educational Platforms for Learning Nursing Student: Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04940455
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 28233120.4.0000.0030
- Conditions
- Educational Technology
- Keywords
- Educational Technology, Simulation Training, "Learning", Learning Curve, Active Learning, Nursing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of BrasiliaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Mar 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Sep 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 25 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Teaching modalities that integrate digital educational technologies, such as educational games, dummies and simulated environments, develop critical thinking in students, the absorption of significant learning and the consequent reduction in the exposure of patients to the damage associated with health care. Thus, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of simulation strategies and digital educational platforms in the teaching-learning process, in self-confidence and its implications for the physiological variables and stressful feelings of undergraduate nursing students. Our hypothesis is that students submitted to the use of digital platforms will present lower levels of self-efficacy, capacity for clinical judgment and retention of knowledge when compared to those who were submitted to the simulation strategy.
Detailed description
The study will be carried out in the simulation laboratory of two Higher Education Institutions, one public and the other private in the city of Brasília, Brazil. The sample will consist of 100 students randomized into an experimental group (n=50) and a control group (n=50). Students enrolled in the undergraduate nursing course, aged 18 years or over, will be eligible; have minimal approval in a discipline related to the content of "Nursing Care for Adult Patients". Students who work actively in the scenario of patient care in critical and risk situations will be excluded; members of the Academic League of Realistic Health Simulation and those with prior training in the health field. It is expected that nursing students, through active and innovative strategies, will be able to obtain and retain greater knowledge, raise levels of self-efficacy and clinical judgment, for their performance in clinical practice.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Educational digital platforms | Experimental | Other: Educational digital platformsNursing students from the Experimental Group (GE), will participate in educational activities made available on digital platforms on "nursing care for patients with signs and symptoms of sepsis" |
| High-Fidelity Simulation | Active comparator | Other: Educational digital platformsNursing students in the Control Group (GC) will be exposed to high-fidelity simulation in the intensive care setting, where they must solve situations and procedures related to the nurse's performance in recognizing the signs and symptoms of sepsis. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Aged over 18 years;
- Students approved in the discipline related to nursing care for adult and elderly patients.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Students who actively work in the scenario of patient care in critical and risk situations; Members of the Realistic Health Simulation League; Students with previous training in the health area (nursing technicians, firefighters, among others) ; Participants who for some reason are absent from one of the project stages.
- -
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Educational digital platformsThe digital educational platforms will be implemented through games of questions and answers, simulated cases sent via google forms about the nurse's performance in a critical care unit facing the patient with signs and symptoms of sepsis. The questions in the games will aim to develop clinical judgment and quick decision-making in nursing students in order not to compromise the health care of the patient in sepsis. | Other | Educational digital platforms, High-Fidelity Simulation |
Primary outcome
Cognitive Performance (Baseline)
Time frame: Applied before the intervention
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Cognitive Performance (Post-Test)
Time frame: Applied immediately after the intervention
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Cognitive Performance (Retention over time)
Time frame: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Cognitive Performance (Retention over time)
Time frame: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Application of a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions to assess the knowledge of nursing students about signs and sepsis symptoms
Clinical Judgment (Baseline)
Time frame: Applied before the intervention
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR)- Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points.
Clinical Judgment
Time frame: Applied immediately after the intervention
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) - Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points .
Clinical Judgment
Time frame: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) - Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points.
Clinical Judgment
Time frame: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Evaluation of the development of clinical reasoning of nursing students. The instrument Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) - Brazilian Version will be used. It assesses 11 dimensions at four levels of clinical judgment (recognition, interpretation, response, reflection). The total score ranges from 11 to 44, where the "initial" level generates one point, the "in development" level generates two points, the "proficient" level generates three points and the "exemplary" level generates four points .
Self-efficacy (Baseline)
Time frame: Applied before the intervention
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Self-efficacy
Time frame: Applied immediately after the intervention
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Self-efficacy
Time frame: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
Self-efficacy
Time frame: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Assessment of satisfaction, learning, individual performance after educational actions. A self-efficacy scale will be used. IT'S self-applicable and has 13 items related to beliefs about their own abilities, motivation for action, coping with obstacles, predisposition to challenge, openness to experience, resilience in the face of failures, the influence of initial success on the the final success of an activity and the history of previous successes. These items are represented by a Likert-type scale of agreement, containing five points, in which 1 represents the participant's total disagreement and 5 the total agreement. Scores above 2.5 indicate that participants feel very capable.
4 secondary outcomes
Student stress (Baseline)
Time frame: Before the intervention
Student stress
Time frame: Applied immediately after the intervention
Student stress
Time frame: Applied thirty days after the intervention
Student stress
Time frame: Applied sixty days after the intervention
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Jun 2021.
- Background: PubMed 28723986Silveira MS, Cogo ALP. The contributions of digital technologies in the teaching of nursing skills: an integrative review. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2017 Jul 13;38(2):e66204. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2017.02.66204. English, Portuguese.
- Background: PubMed 26282193Basak T, Unver V, Moss J, Watts P, Gaioso V. Beginning and advanced students' perceptions of the use of low- and high-fidelity mannequins in nursing simulation. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Jan;36:37-43. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.07.020. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
- Background: PubMed 30652802Cogo ALP, Lopes EFDS, Perdomini FRI, Flores GE, Santos MRRD. Building and developing realistic simulation scenarios on safe drug administration. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2019 Jan 10;40(spe):e20180175. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2019.20180175. English, Portuguese.
- Background: PubMed 25887044Valentin B, Grottke O, Skorning M, Bergrath S, Fischermann H, Rortgen D, Mennig MT, Fitzner C, Muller MP, Kirschbaum C, Rossaint R, Beckers SK. Cortisol and alpha-amylase as stress response indicators during pre-hospital emergency medicine training with repetitive high-fidelity simulation and scenarios with standardized patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Apr 8;23:31. doi: 10.1186/s13049-015-0110-6.
- Background: PubMed 28538244McGuire K, Lorenz R. Effect of Simulation on Learner Stress as Measured by Cortisol: An Integrative Review. Nurse Educ. 2018 Jan/Feb;43(1):45-49. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000393.
- Background: PubMed 29687734Fraser K, McLaughlin K. Temporal pattern of emotions and cognitive load during simulation training and debriefing. Med Teach. 2019 Feb;41(2):184-189. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1459531. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
- Background: PubMed 29291462Nieto Fernandez-Pacheco A, Castro Delgado R, Arcos Gonzalez P, Navarro Fernandez JL, Ceron Madrigal JJ, Juguera Rodriguez L, Perez Alonso N, Armero-Barranco D, Lidon Lopez Iborra M, Damian ET, Pardo Rios M. Analysis of performance and stress caused by a simulation of a mass casualty incident. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Mar;62:52-57. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.016. Epub 2017 Dec 15.
- Background: PubMed 31867357Mohammadi G, Tourdeh M, Ebrahimian A. Effect of simulation-based training method on the psychological health promotion in operating room students during the educational internship. J Educ Health Promot. 2019 Sep 30;8:172. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_106_19. eCollection 2019.
- Background: PubMed 30958836de Sena DP, Fabricio DD, da Silva VD, Bodanese LC, Franco AR. Comparative evaluation of video-based on-line course versus serious game for training medical students in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomised trial. PLoS One. 2019 Apr 8;14(4):e0214722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214722. eCollection 2019.
- Background: PubMed 32514382Blanie A, Amorim MA, Meffert A, Perrot C, Dondelli L, Benhamou D. Assessing validity evidence for a serious game dedicated to patient clinical deterioration and communication. Adv Simul (Lond). 2020 May 27;5:4. doi: 10.1186/s41077-020-00123-3. eCollection 2020.
- Background: PubMed 27737376Fonseca LM, Aredes ND, Fernandes AM, Batalha LM, Apostolo JM, Martins JC, Rodrigues MA. Computer and laboratory simulation in the teaching of neonatal nursing: innovation and impact on learning. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016 Oct 10;24:e2808. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.1005.2808.
Related trials for Educational Technology
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of an Artificial Intelligence-Supported Virtual Reality Simulation on Nursing Students' Holistic Care Skills
Nursing Students, Decision-Making
Recruiting
Flipped Classroom vs. Flip-Jigsaw in Theoretical Physiotherapy Education
Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Educational Technology
Not yet recruiting
Digital Gamification vs. Traditional Training for Hip Replacement Instrument Table Setup (ORNurse)
Surgical Education, Operating Room Nursing
Not yet recruiting
Using Digital Health Technology to Prevent Bullying and Cyberbullying Among Elementary School Students
Bullying, Cyberbullying
Active, not recruiting
AI-Powered Interview Simulation to Improve Employability and Reduce Anxiety in Nursing and Midwifery Students
Employment Anxiety, Perceived Employability
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Marcia CS Magro, PhD principal investigator
University of Brasilia
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Educational digital platforms in people with Educational Technology, run by University of Brasilia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Jun 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Marcia CS Magro, PhD (5561982690888, marciamagro@unb.br), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Cognitive Performance (Baseline) (time frame: Applied before the intervention). The study lists 12 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04940455, which also lists 11 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Jun 2021.