Comparison of the Effectiveness of a Virtual Simulator With a Plastic Arm Model in Teaching Intravenous Catheter Insertion Skills

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a virtual intravenous simulator with a plastic arm model in teaching intravenous catheter insertion skills to nursing students. We used a randomized controlled quasi-experimental trial design and recruited 65 students who were assigned to the experimental (n = 33) and control (n = 32) groups using the simple random sampling method. The experimental group received intravenous catheterization skills training on the virtual intravenous simulator, and the control group received the same training on a plastic model of a human arm. Data were collected using the personal information form, intravenous catheterization knowledge assessment form, Intravenous Catheterization Skill Test, Self-Confidence and Satisfaction Scale, and Fear Symptoms Scale. In the study, the mean scores in the control group were 20.44 for psychomotor skills, 15.62 for clinical psychomotor skills, 31.78 for self-confidence, and 21.77 for satisfaction. The mean scores in the experimental group were 45.18 for psychomotor skills, 16.28 for clinical psychomotor skills, 34.18 for self-confidence, and 43.89 for satisfaction. The results indicated that psychomotor skills and satisfaction scores were higher in the experimental group, while the clinical psychomotor skills and self-confidence scores were similar in both groups. More students in the control group reported experiencing symptoms such as cold and sweaty hands, significant restlessness, and tense muscles than those in the experimental group.

Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Nursing Education: Meta-Analysis

“…Studies included trials conducted in 7 countries: United States [ 31 , 39 - 42 ], Turkey [ 43 ], Canada [ 44 ], Korea [ 45 ], Singapore [ 46 ], Portugal [ 47 ], and China [ 48 , 49 ]. Two trials adopted a 3-arm group design [ 42 , 45 ], while 10 trials used a 2-arm group design.…”

“…In all trials, participants were nursing students, except for one study in which participants were nursing staff [ 49 ]. Six of 12 trials compared VR education with traditional education [ 31 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 48 , 49 ], while the remaining trials compared VR education with other simulation types including fidelity manikin [ 44 , 47 ], mannequin-based simulation [ 40 , 45 , 46 ], and plastic model [ 43 ]. The characteristics of the participants, intervention details, and outcome measures are presented in Table 1 .…”

“…Based on the Cochrane criteria, a risk-of-bias assessment is presented in Figures 2 and 3 . Four of 12 studies reported randomized methods in detail [ 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 ], while the remaining 8 trials did not provide the methods of sequence generation. None of the trials provided concealment methods, except for one that reported the use of anonymization [ 47 ].…”

“…In all trials, no blind method was used on participants due to the particularity of the intervention methods. Two trials reported employing blinding of assessors [ 39 , 43 ]. Additionally, 2 studies mentioned dropouts without detail on handling information [ 46 , 49 ].…”

“…A total of 7 studies reported knowledge scores as the outcome [ 40 - 43 , 47 - 49 ]. The results indicated that VR education can improve knowledge of participants more effectively than the control conditions (SMD=0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.75, P< .001, I 2 =47%, Figure 4 ).…”