Nursing Students’ Satisfaction: A Comparison between Medium- and High-Fidelity Simulation Training

Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero, Carmen María Sarabia-Cobo, María José Catalán-Piris, Silvia González-Gómez and José Rafael González-López
Additional contact information
Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero: Department of Nursing, University of Cantabria, Avenida Valdecilla, s/n, 39008 Santander, Spain
Carmen María Sarabia-Cobo: Department of Nursing, University of Cantabria, Avenida Valdecilla, s/n, 39008 Santander, Spain
María José Catalán-Piris: Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avenzoar nº6, 41009 Seville, Spain
Silvia González-Gómez: Cantabrian Health Service, Av. Herrera Oria, s/n, 39011 Santander, Spain
José Rafael González-López: Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avenzoar nº6, 41009 Seville, Spain

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 2, 1-11

Abstract: Training based on clinical simulation is an effective method of teaching in nursing. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence about if it is better to use high- or medium-fidelity simulation. The aim is to analyse if students are more satisfied when their clinical simulation practices are based on high-fidelity simulation (HFS) or medium-fidelity simulation (MFS). Students´ satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation. The sample is composed of 393 students from two Spanish Universities. Satisfaction with simulation in nursing students is significantly greater in MFS than HFS. Simulation is beneficial for learning in all its forms, but for the acquisition of basic skills, and at a lower cost, MFS proves to be effective. However, high-fidelity is not always better than medium-fidelity as this depends on the student’s level of knowledge and clinical experience.

Keywords: simulation training; nursing students; personal satisfaction; high-fidelity simulation training (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/804/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/804/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:804-:d:482754

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().