Comparison of standardized patient and medium-fidelity simulation practices on nursing students' knowledge, staging, and satisfaction regarding pressure injuries: A randomized controlled trial


Baran Z., AYİK C., ÖZDEN D.

Nurse Education Today, cilt.151, 2025 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 151
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106735
  • Dergi Adı: Nurse Education Today
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, ASSIA, CINAHL, EBSCO Education Source, Education Abstracts, Educational research abstracts (ERA), DIALNET
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Pressure injury, Simulation, Standardized patient, Moulage, Randomized controlled trial
  • Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effects of education using standardized patients (SP) and medium-fidelity simulation (MFS) on nursing students' knowledge, staging, and satisfaction related to pressure injuries (PI). Design: A pre- and post-test, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Methods: The study included nursing students (n = 79) from a nursing faculty in western Turkey between April and July. Data were collected using the Student Characteristics Form, the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool 2.0 (PUKAT 2.0-T), the Pressure Injury Staging Form, and the Student Satisfaction and Confidence in Learning Scale. Results: The SP (n = 40) and MFS (n = 39) groups did not demonstrate any significant differences in staging levels (SP: 9.42 ± 3.24, MFS: 10.41 ± 2.96) or PI knowledge (SP: 11.73 ± 3.39, MFS: 12.00 ± 4.52) following the simulation experience. Both groups showed a statistically significant increase in PI knowledge and staging levels after the interventions compared to before (p < .05). The learning satisfaction level of the SP group (23.03 ± 2.37) was significantly higher than that of the MFS group (21.51 ± 4.03) (p < .05). No significant differences were found between the groups regarding self-confidence levels (p > .05). Conclusion: Both simulation methods improved students' PI knowledge and staging levels; however, the satisfaction level of students in the SP group was found to be higher. Therefore, it is recommended to enhance the realism of PI education using SPs and to expand the use of simulation practices. Registration: The study has been registered with the National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials: NCT05946291.