Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effect of virtual reality on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes in nursing staffs: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Nursing volume 22, Article number: 170 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In the healthcare systems of the world, reinforcing the competence and professionalism of nurses has become a concern. Gaining clinical nursing competence in the healthcare system requires more effort, and additional training is required. Medical education and training have begun using digital technologies, such as virtual reality (VR). The purpose of this research was to examine the efficacy of VR in terms of cognitive, emotional, and psychomotor outcomes and learning satisfaction in nurses.

Method

The study searched eight databases (Cochrane library, EBSCOHost, Embase, OVID MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) for articles that met these criteria: (i) nursing staff, (ii) any virtual reality technology intervention for education, all levels of immersion, [1] randomized control trial and quasi-experiment study, and (iv) published articles and unpublished theses. The standardized mean difference was measured. The random effect model was applied to measure the main outcome of the study with a significance level of p < .05. The I2 statistic assessment was applied to identify the level of heterogeneity of the study.

Results

A total of 6740 studies were identified, of which 12 studies with 1470 participants met the criteria for inclusion. The meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in the cognitive aspect (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.48; 95% CI = 0.33–2.63; p = .011, I2 = 94.88%), the affective aspect (SMD = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.34–0.86; p < .001, I2 = 34.33%), the psychomotor aspect (SMD = 0.901; 95% CI = 0.49–1.31; p < .001, I2 = 80.33%), and learning satisfaction (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.17–0.77; p = .002, I2 = 0%) aspects of the groups that received the VR intervention compared to the control groups. Subgroup analysis found that dependent variables (e.g., level of immersion) did not improve study outcomes. The quality of evidence was low which is affected by major methodological issues.

Conclusions

VR may favorable as alternative method to increase nurse competencies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on larger samples are needed to strengthen the evidence for the effect of VR in various clinical nurse settings. ROSPERO registration number: CRD42022301260.

Peer Review reports

Background

Reinforcing the competency and professionalism of nurses has become an issue in healthcare systems around the world [2,3,4]. As professionals with whom patients spend their time the most [5], nurses make essential contributions to the positive experiences of the patients they care for [6]. There has been evidence that competent nurses have the ability to increase the quality of care [7] in terms of safety [8, 9], prevention of physical injury [10], respect toward cultural matters [11, 12], and patient satisfaction [13]. However, guaranteeing nurses’ clinical competence in healthcare systems requires more effort [14, 15]. To address this, more training for nursing staffs is necessary [9].

Medical education and training have begun using digital technologies, such as the virtual world [16, 17]. Although the definition of the virtual world varies, its presence and use has become a major component of education technology [18], which uses instructional digital software called virtual reality (VR) [19, 20]. The term VR in this study refers to the virtual world that presents various forms of simulation technology in nurse education [16].

Nurses are different from other medical professionals in terms of the uniqueness of their knowledge and the art they perform in nursing care [21]. There have been studies of the healthcare workforce in general [21,22,23], but those results do not represent the nursing profession in particular. Studies of the use of VR with nurses are scarce [22], and some studies involved student nurses [16, 23, 24]. The outcomes in terms of knowledge, performance, self-efficacy, and communication skills have been applied only to nursing students [23, 25, 26]. Kyaw and colleagues suggested a study to evaluate VR with outcomes, including attitude, satisfaction, and behavior change, in future research because the findings in those areas are still limited [27]. Hence, a systematic review to measure the effectiveness of VR on professional nurses requires immediate attention. This meta-analysis is deemed the first to be conducted on nursing staffs in clinical service.

Besides the differences in the study background, previous meta-analyses have focused only on measuring knowledge levels as outcomes [25]. Therefore, by involving extracted literature reviews from a large database, this study will contribute additional findings to the previous ones. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains [28, 29] was applied in this study to identify similar study outcomes. Through the research gap above, this study aims to [30] measured the effect of VR on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes in nursing staff, and [2] identified the components that affect the outcomes of VR used to train nursing staff.

Methods

Design, search strategy, and study selection

This study has been reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [31], and it has been registered with PROSPERO (No: CRD42022301260). Studies were collected from eight databases (CENTRAL from Cochrane library, CINAHL from EBSCOHost, Embase, MEDLINE from OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). For articles collected, there is no time limit. Articles from inception until May 2022 were collected using keywords combinations presented in Additional File 1. Then, two independent researchers performed the study screening using EndNote X9 software. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria in this study were: (i) nursing staff, (ii) any virtual reality technology intervention for education, all levels of immersion, [1] randomized control trial and quasi-experiment study, and (iv) published articles. The exclusion criteria consisted of: (i) pre-post test study without control grup,(ii) insufficient data for analyses, and [1] conference proceedings, abstract only, book chapters, reviews, letters, and editorials.

Intervention

The term virtual reality refers to the spatial system that represents the physical world [32]. The computer system in VR consists of input and output devices that separate and connect the user with the virtual world [33, 34]. Isolation in VR can lead to a sense of immersion and presence—concepts that define VR [35]. Immersion in the virtual world is the extent to which users feel part of that world in a multi-dimensional concept that includes telepresence [33]. VR can be displayed on various devices, such as computer monitor and three dimensional (3D) or two dimensional (2D) television [36, 37], and head-mounted displays (HMDs) [33]. The keyboard, mouse, and trackball are examples of haptic interfaces in everyday life [33]. Avatars are often used to represent users in such simulations for creating real experiences in a virtual environment [36]. The level of immersion is a technical manipulation that can be applied to a broad range of paradigms [38]. The standardized classification of VR levels is described as VR: low, VR: medium, and VR: high [38, 39]. Comprehensive definition of the VR concepts in this study was summarized in Additional File 2.

Outcomes of the study and operational definitions

Bloom’s taxonomy was used as the framework for classifying the learning outcomes from the articles included in this study. Bloom’s taxonomy was developed as a tool for educators to classify learning objectives and skills for students (Larkin & Burton, 2008). In this approach, learning is categorized according to three taxonomic domains: the cognitive domain (knowledge), the affective domain (attitudes), and the psychomotor domain (skills) [28]. According to Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues, the cognitive domain refers to the ability to think and solve problems; the affective domain involves attitudes and value systems, and the psychomotor domain represents the ability to do things [40]. To simplify the definition, we use the original version of Bloom’s taxonomy Details of the definitions in Bloom’s taxonomy are Additional File 2 [28, 40,41,42,43].

Data extraction

Two independent investigator (RN, and CE) performed data extraction from the included studies. Information gained from each study included the first author, year of publication, country, participants, education level, age, experience, intervention and control group, results, size, study design, sample size, and key findings. Any discrepancy was resolved through a thorough discussion with the main author of this study.

Risk of bias in individual studies

Risk of bias was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trial studies. For randomized control trials included, bias from the randomization process, the effect of assignment to intervention, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and the selection of the results report have been identified following the Cochrane guidelines [44]. Two reviewers independently completed the assessment of the risk of bias. Any conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. Furthermore, the quality of the quasi-experimental studies used in this study was assessed using the JBI systematic review assessment [45]. The JBI critical assessment checklist for quasi-experimental studies comprises nine questions to assess threats to internal validity, namely on variables, participants included, interventions used, measurements of outcomes, and statistical analysis (Additional File 3).

Synthesis of results

The standardized mean difference was calculated using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) V.3 software to measure the main and additional research outputs in this study. The overall effect size was tested with the standardized mean difference (SMD) and determined by calculating the Z-statistic with a significance level of p < .05. A sensitivity analysis of publication bias was performed [46] to assess the robustness of the studies’ results [47]. The I2 statistical assessment was used to determine the level of heterogeneity of the study [48] and to compare the impact of treatment from different interventions [49]. The Egger test [50] and visual inspection of the funnel plot asymmetry [51] were used to assess publication bias.

Meta-regression analysis of secondary data from factors influencing heterogeneity was performed on subgroups to identify and control for heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis was carried out on factors that were thought to affect the homogeneity of the study. Because the focus of this study was on the benefits of VR interventions, the variables included in the subgroup analysis were the level of immersion, head tracking, study design, and intervention context variables. The level of immersion was coded as high, moderate, or low. Head tracking was categorized into no head tracking and head tracking. Furthermore, randomized clinical trials (RCT) and quasi-experiments are elements of study design and intervention context categorized as emergency response and not emergency response. Meanwhile, the variables of screen resolution, field of view, refresh rate, and stereoscopy/3D were omitted from the subgroup analysis because of insufficient information. Non-visual stimuli and interactivity variables were not analyzed because they showed the same conditions in all studies. The variables of total sessions of interventions and total duration were analyzed in minutes, which is a continuous variable with meta-regression analysis to determine its effect on the main outcome of this study.

Results

Search results

A total of 6772 records were retrieved from 14 databases, and 432 duplicate records were removed using EndNote software. The final sample size was 12 studies comprising 7 RCTs and 5 quasi-experimental studies with full text for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Study screening and selection process shown as Fig. 1 [52].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA Flowchart diagram of the study selection

Full size image

Study characteristics

Table 1 lists the characteristics of the 12 articles studied, which were published between 2002 [53] and 2021 [54,55,56,57,58]. Of these, four took place in China [53, 56,57,58], three in Taiwan [54, 55, 59], two in the United States of America [60, 61], and one each in Hongkong [62], Singapore [63], and Korea [64]. The participants in four studies were newly graduated registered nurses (NGRNs) [55, 56, 58, 59], in three they were registered nurses and enrolled nurses [53, 57, 62], and in five they were experienced RNs [54, 60, 61, 63, 64]. There was a total of 1470 nurses in the 12 studies. Brief explanation for VR were presented in the next Chapter (Table 2).

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Description of VR systems and interventions
Full size table

VR intervention

Table 2 provides detailed descriptions of the VR training. According to delivering method, three approaches to VR training used web-based simulation [56, 58, 63], seven used computer-based simulation [53, 57, 59,60,61,62, 64], and two used spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) simulation [54, 55]. The level of immersion of the VR training was low in six approaches [57, 59, 60, 62,63,64], moderate in three [53, 56, 58], and high in three [54, 55, 61]. The number of sessions ranged from 1 [54, 61, 63, 64] to 4 sessions [62], and the length of each session ranged from 10 min [60] to 4 h [57]. The total duration of training ranged from 1 h [61] to three weeks [59]. Three out of 12 studies had their interventions developed based on theoretical frameworks [54, 56, 58].

Quality assessment

The bias assessment of seven RCT studies using the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 instrument showed six studies [53, 57, 59,60,61,62, 64] were at high risk. These studies lacked detailed reporting of randomized and blind methods, but all studies reported complete data outcomes (Additional file 3). Meanwhile, four quasi-experimental studies using the JBI assessment tool showed that the results of four studies [56, 58, 63] were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. All four studies reported having fully reported on the quasi-experimental method. Only one study (Green, 2017) did not fully report on follow-up data and similarities. Details of the quality assessment of quasi-experimental studies are provided in Additional file 3.

Pooled results

The impact of intervention on the cognitive aspect

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of individual and combined effects from intervention reporting cognitive outcomes

Full size image

The effects of VR interventions on the cognitive aspect among nurses were evaluated in five studies, and the pooled effects were statistically significant. As shown in Fig. 2, The effect on the cognitive aspect had a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 1.48 (95% CI = 0.33–2.63), and the studies were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 94.88%). Because of the small sample size, the moderator analysis (subgroup) was conducted only for the level of immersion. The moderator analysis showed no significant differences in effect sizes for the nurses’ cognitive aspect between the level of immersion (p = .788). The results of Egger’s test indicated that there was no publication bias (p = .162).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of individual and combined effects from intervention reporting affective outcomes

Full size image

The impact of intervention on the affective aspect

Figure 3 shows the effects of virtual reality interventions on affective among nurses in seven studies. This study found that the pooled effect size was statistically significant. The effect on affective had an SMD of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.86). The studies were moderately heterogeneous (I2 = 34.33%, p < .001). The moderator analysis showed no significant differences in effect sizes for nurse’s affective aspect between level of immersion (p = .713), study design (p = .060), and interventions context (p = .376). The results of Egger’s test indicated no publication bias (p = .462).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of individual and combined effects from intervention reporting psychomotor outcomes

Full size image

The impact of intervention on the psychomotor aspect

Figure 4 describes the effects of VR interventions among nursing staffs. The pooled results from nine studies indicated a statistically significant effect of VR intervention on the psychomotor aspect. The effect on psychomotor had an SMD of 0.901 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31). The studies were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 80.33%, p < .001). The moderator analysis showed no significant differences in effect sizes for nurses’ psychomotor ability between the level of immersion (p = .934). The results of Egger’s test indicated no publication bias (p = .462).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of individual and combined effects from intervention reporting satisfaction outcomes

Full size image

The impact of intervention on learning satisfaction

The effects of VR interventions on learning satisfaction among nurses were evaluated in four studies, and the pooled effect size was statistically significant. The effect on satisfaction had an SMD of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.77). Significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of satisfaction was not found (see Fig. 5). the moderator analysis was not performed in this section.

Table 3 Moderator analysis: Subgroup analysis
Full size table

Table 3 describes the effect of the level of immersion, study design, use of head tracking, and the intervention context on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes. Subgroup analysis concluded that there was no effect of those independent variables on the study outcomes (p > .05). Meta-regression using a random effect model, in the Table 4, was used to examine the effect of total session and total minutes’ duration of intervention on the effect size of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects. Table 4 shows that those two covariates had no effect on the outcomes of the study (p > .05).

Table 4 Moderator analysis: Meta-regression analysis
Full size table

Sensitivity analysis

To assess the robustness of the results of the meta-analysis comparing the changes in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects and learning satisfaction, sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding one study at a time. No results were significantly altered, indicating the robustness of our results.

Discussion

Summary of key findings

This meta-analysis showed that all three domains of Bloom’s taxonomy, comprising cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects, were improved to a statistically significant level by the application of VR for training the nursing workforce. A significantly higher score for learning satisfaction in the VR groups also was revealed. In terms of moderator analysis, the level of immersion, study design, use of head tracking, and the intervention context, our moderator analysis found no significant difference in the effect sizes of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects in nurses. Finally, meta-regression also showed that interventions comprising total sessions and total minutes’ duration did not affect cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes.

Quality assessment

This VR study can be used as a reference with a low quality of evidence. Though the Egger’s test indicated no publication bias, high risk of bias was found in the reporting of RCT studies. Information on blinding or masking between the intervention and control groups was not available. The report of the randomization allocation technique was also not explained by the researchers. Not all RCT study protocols registered, leading to a lack of information for risk assessment of reporting bias. Prospective registration of clinical trials is important because of the issue of publication bias and selective reporting [65]. The publication status of the listed RCTs would provide clarity for readers to assess the research report [65]. The result of I2 also performed substantial heterogeneity among two outcomes. This may due to the variation of intervention, duration, and media used. Furthermore, this review also includes the four quasi-experimental studies which may interfer internal validity of the data pooling.

Virtual reality and cognitive improvement

VR training considerably raised the cognitive level of the nursing staffs. Although they did not assess the cognitive aspect based on Bloom’s categories, previous studies have evaluated the effect of VR on knowledge outcomes as one part of the cognitive domain [43, 66]. This result is consistent with earlier reviews and meta-analyses that examined the impact of VR training and reported an increase in the applied knowledge of registered nurses and nursing students [67]. In addition, other studies focusing on nursing students revealed the same result [25, 68, 69]. The realism and immersion of the simulated VR world boosted pupil comprehension. Students believed that the ability to modify an avatar’s viewpoint enhanced their ability to learn [70]. On the other hand, VR showed more efficacy in nursing than conventional or other simulation-based education modalities. Virtual patients helped students to understand better the ideas taught and how to apply their new knowledge [71].

As evidenced by the previous study, Bloom’s taxonomy has provided a basis for learning in a VR environment [70]. Bloom’s taxonomy helps examine the process by which VR promotes knowledge acquisition. Bloom’s taxonomy has been extensively used in educational contexts to help students think and solve problems through the learning process. VR presents educational ideas of higher-level thinking in Bloom’s cognitive domains, such as creative and critical thinking, problem-solving, and multiple intelligences [70, 72]. It is also directly related to technological integration [70]. Bloom’s theory proposes that the acquisition of cognitive knowledge will proceed in three ways: comprehension, application, and analysis [43]. During VR simulations, the participants comprehend how to handle the problem in the most applicable method feasible, and they assess whether their knowledge is adequate to provide this clinical care [73]. VR programs may be essential for enhancing learning material as a supplement to conventional training [74].

Virtual reality and affective improvement

Pooled data showed the effectiveness of VR in improving nurses’ affective aspect, compared to other traditional methods. This result is in line with a systematic review investigating the impact of VR intervention on nursing students’ and registered nurses’ emotional skills compared to other training method [75]. VR has the potential to foster empathy and help nurses visualize situations from the perspective of patients and in an affective domain [76]. Ouzouni and Nakakis [77] concluded that a nurse’s empathy is a two-pronged term that encompasses both emotional and mental reactions. Thus, using VR in education can improve nurses’ ability to detect another person’s emotions, comprehend their significance, and respond appropriately. A benefit of VR for influencing human emotions is that it simulates complex real-world situations [78].

According to Bloom’s taxonomy, in the affective domain, the behaviors of receiving and reacting must be used throughout the pre-simulation, pre-briefing or briefing, and participation phases [73, 79]. Previous research uncovered gaps and deficiencies in developing nursing students’ emotional domains for trust, decision-making, and patient care. The clinical simulation approach was planned and supported using Bloom’s taxonomy for competence building. The simulation linked with Bloom’s taxonomy might transcend the learning of cognitive and psychomotor domains, producing congruence between knowledge and the affective and psychomotor aspects in the nursing student [73, 80]. The affective domain is established during the first phases of the clinical simulation, when the person’s determination and drive to learn are appreciated and heightened during debriefing, which includes all the behaviors described by Bloom’s taxonomy throughout the reflective process. This supports the significance of debriefing for the development of clinical nursing competence [73].

Virtual reality and psychomotor improvement

Though the included articles comprised a range of participants and types of psychomotor skills, this meta-analysis showed that VR intervention could improve the psychomotor domain in nurses. These results support the findings of several studies [67, 81, 82]. On the other hand, in a meta-analysis that encompassed nursing student participants, VR was not more effective than traditional methods in improving nursing skills [23]. This finding is consistent with other reviews that VR was not proven to influence skill development in nursing students and registered nurses [16]. From this point, it can be argued that the conclusions of some recent studies are inconsistent. This might be because there were various participant characteristics, such as years of experience and level of education. It cannot be overlooked that these variables affect the clinical skills of nurses.

In Bloom’s taxonomy, the psychomotor aspect is in the second phase of clinical simulation, which is initiated by the cognitive and affective domains in the first phase [83]. In other words, the performance of psychomotor skills is affected by the pre-knowledge and motivation of nurses, and these aspects are gained from the experience of environment exposure. Our analysis of the studies showed that VR significantly improved nurses’ cognitive and affective aspects. Thus, initiating psychomotor improvement in nursing staffs by the affective and cognitive aspects is guaranteed in this study. The role of VR is imperative to help nurses get closer to the real environment [84]. Thus, VR is presumed to provide positive benefits in improving clinical skills.

Virtual reality and learning satisfaction

This review concluded that VR could significantly improve nursing staff’s learning satisfaction compared to other training modalities. Compared to the three domains of Bloom’s taxonomy, the number of included studies on learning satisfaction was relatively small. Nonetheless, the four included studies were remarkably similar. This finding is not supported by Chen, Leng [68] who found no significant increase in learning satisfaction among students of nursing and other health professions. However, it is essential to consider the homogeneity of immersion levels across studies, which is likely to influence the results.

Researchers have shown strong positive associations between student motivation and academic performance [85, 86]. Based on anatomical arrangement, Moro, Å tromberga [87] discovered that one-third of participants found the VR approaches disorienting and annoying. Using VR may result in cybersickness, including nausea, dizziness, and headache. Thus, future research should concentrate on the detrimental impacts of VR, such as impaired vision and confusion [85, 88].

Moderator analysis

The statistical test of moderator analysis of the subgroups of the categorical and continuous variables in the meta-analysis and meta-regression showed that there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of VR at various levels of attenuation (high, moderate, or low), the presence or absence of head tracking, study design (RCT or quasi-experimental), intervention context (emergency or not emergency), total sessions of interventions, and total minutes’ duration. The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains showed the same results from the moderator analysis. This finding is consistent with a previous meta-analysis, which reported that content covariates, level of immersion, length of sessions, and the number of sessions did not affect knowledge outcome scores [25]. However, it cannot be concluded that there is no effect of covariate variables on the effectiveness of VR because the studies included in this meta-analysis were mostly conducted on small samples, and the bias of most studies was assessed as high risk. According to Woon, a low to medium level of immersion is more effective in providing a learning environment than a high level of immersion [25]. Further exploration is needed to determine the effect of VR on the levels of immersion, interactivity [27], VR devices, and intervention context.

Strengths and limitations

As far as the authors know, this study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of VR in nursing staff populations. There was no publication bias from the 12 studies. This work provides three outcomes of VR intervention, which are inspired by Bloom’s taxonomy. The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains are deemed to be the pedagogic mechanism for the development of nursing competence in clinical settings [83]. Moreover, this work conducted a sensitivity analysis that showed the robustness of the results. However, risk of bias was high in most of the study included. The heterogeneity among two outcomes were considered substantial. In addition, the quasi-experiment method was still included in this review because of the lack of studies focused on nursing staffs. The other shortcomings were the exclusion of potential appropriate study related engineering area due to the conference proceedings were excluded in this study.Lastly, most of the analyzed studies were conducted on small sample sizes. Therefore, the analysis of study bias should be treated with careful caution.

Impact on clinical practice training

This work strengthened the prospect of involving VR in training nurses and improving their nursing competency. There is high confidence in the effectiveness of VR in increasing the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor dimensions of nurses’ knowledge, which can lead to improved patient safety and increased patient satisfaction. Nevertheless, using VR has been presumed to be expensive and demanding. Fortunately, the literature has shown that VR has lower costs than traditional simulation [89]. Therefore, cost should not be a major concern of hospital management. However, technological issues may be a challenge for nursing departments. The use of VR should be understood comprehensively by the users so that the equipment is run properly. In addition, regular updates and maintenance of the programs are necessary to avoid glitches [90]. Thus, the existence of a special team that handles such technology is required.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study provides evidence that VR is an effective alternative for improving nurses’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects and their learning satisfaction. Furthermore, this work found that there was no significance in effect size among dependent variables (e.g., level of immersion) did not improve study outcomes for all four outcomes. However, the possibility of heterogeneity and the risk of bias among studies cannot be ignored. Thus, the quality of evidence from this review was classified as low. Further RCTs with larger samples and robust methods based on the guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are needed to ensure straightforward investigation of cause–effect relationships within the internal and external validity [91]. An evaluation of cost-effectiveness and technological feasibility is needed to guarantee the applicability of VR in settings with low resources. Further study should address the impact of VR technology on nurses’ clinical performance in real-world work settings.

Data availability

The supplementary materials for this study can be found in Additional file 1–5. Further inquiries should be directed to the corresponding author, and data from this study will be made available upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

VR:

Virtual Reality

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

CMA:

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

SMD:

Standardized Mean Difference

RCT:

Randomized Controlled Trial

HMDs:

Head-Mounted Displays

POV:

Field of View

3D:

three dimensions

2D:

two dimensions

CI:

Confidence Interval

HD:

Hemodialysis

NR:

Not Report:IV:Intravenous

DPET:

Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool

MCQ:

Multiple-Choice Questions

CathSim ITS:

CathSim Intravenous Training System

STAI:

The State Trait Anxiety Inventory

SVVR-EFL:

Spherical Video-Based Virtual Reality Based Experiential Flipped Learning

RAPIDS:

Rescuing a Patient in Deteriorating Situation

AHAACLFCQ:

American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support Course Questionnaire

SVVR:

Spherical Video-Based Virtual Reality

HFS:

High-Fidelity Simulation

VS:

Virtual Simulation

LCJR:

Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric

SDS:

Simulation Design Scale

AQCFCN-NED:

Assessment Questionnaire of Clinical First-aid Capability of Nurses in Non-emergency Department

RSSLCN:

Rating Scale of Self-directed Learning Competence for Nurses

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

References

  1. Stahl ST, Smagula SF, Rodakowski J, Dew MA, Karp JF, Albert SM, et al. Subjective Sleep Quality and Trajectories of Interleukin-6 in older adults. Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2021;29(2):204–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jokiniemi K, Pietila AM, Mikkonen S. Construct validity of clinical nurse specialist core competency scale: an exploratory factor analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2020;30(13–14):1863–73.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Karami A, Farokhzadian J, Foroughameri G. Nurses’ professional competency and organizational commitment: is it important for human resource management? PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0187863.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Global strategic. directions for nursing and midwifery 2021–2025 [press release]. 2021.

  5. Westbrook JI, Duffield C, Li L, Creswick NJ. How much time do nurses have for patients? A longitudinal study quantifying hospital nurses’ patterns of task time distribution and interactions with health professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:319.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Teng CI, Hsiao FJ, Chou TA. Nurse-perceived time pressure and patient-perceived care quality. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18(3):275–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gaalan K, Kunaviktikul W, Akkadechanunt T, Turale S. Factors predicting quality of nursing care among nurses in tertiary care hospitals in Mongolia. Int Nurs Rev. 2019;66(2):176–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Di Muzio M, De Vito C, Tartaglini D, Villari P. Knowledge, behaviours, training and attitudes of nurses during preparation and administration of intravenous medications in intensive care units (ICU). A multicenter italian study. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;38:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Simone ED, Giannetta N, Auddino F, Cicotto A, Grilli D, Muzio MD. Medication errors in the emergency department: knowledge, attitude, behavior, and training needs of nurses. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2018;22(5):346–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Cho SM, Choi J. Patient safety culture associated with patient safety competencies among registered nurses. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018;50(5):549–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huh A, Shin JH. Person-centered care practice, patient safety competence, and patient safety nursing activities of nurses working in geriatric hospitals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10).

  12. Lee SE, Lee MH, Peters AB, Gwon SH. Assessment of patient safety and cultural competencies among senior baccalaureate nursing students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12).

  13. Nobahar M. Competence of nurses in the intensive cardiac care unit. Electron Physician. 2016;8(5):2395–404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Afshar M, Sadeghi-Gandomani H, Masoudi Alavi N. A study on improving nursing clinical competencies in a surgical department: a participatory action research. Nurs Open. 2020;7(4):1052–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ajuebor O, McCarthy C, Li Y, Al-Blooshi SM, Makhanya N, Cometto G. Are the global strategic directions for strengthening nursing and midwifery 2016–2020 being implemented in countries? Findings from a cross-sectional analysis. Hum Resour Health. 2019;17(1):54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shorey S, Ng ED. The use of virtual reality simulation among nursing students and registered nurses: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;98:104662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Remtulla R. The Present and Future Applications of Technology in Adapting Medical Education amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR Med Educ. 2020;6(2):e20190.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Girvan C. What is a virtual world? Definition and classification. Education Tech Research Dev. 2018;66(5):1087–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barrie M, Socha JJ, Mansour L, Patterson ES, editors. Mixed reality in medical education: A narrative literature review. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care; 2019.

  20. Mangina E. 3D learning objects for augmented/virtual reality educational ecosystems. 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM)2017.

  21. Olsen PR, Gjevjon ER, Perspectives. European academy of nursing science debate 2016: are there any aspects unique to nursing? J Res Nurs. 2017;22(3):247–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput Educ. 2020;147.

  23. Chen F-Q, Leng Y-F, Ge J-F, Wang D-W, Li C, Chen B, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e18290.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Plotzky C, Lindwedel U, Sorber M, Loessl B, König P, Kunze C, et al. Virtual reality simulations in nurse education: a systematic mapping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;101:104868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Woon APN, Mok WQ, Chieng YJS, Zhang HM, Ramos P, Mustadi HB, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality training in improving knowledge among nursing students: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;98:104655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim SK, Eom MR, Park M-H. Effects of nursing education using virtual reality: a systematic review. J Korea Contents Association. 2019;19(2):661–70.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kyaw BM, Saxena N, Posadzki P, Vseteckova J, Nikolaou CK, George PP, et al. Virtual reality for health professions education: systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(1):e12959.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoque ME. Three domains of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. J EFL Educ Res. 2016;2(2):45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nascimento JdSG, Siqueira TV, Oliveira JLGd, Alves MG, Regino DdSG, Dalri MCB. Development of clinical competence in nursing in simulation: the perspective of Bloom’s taxonomy. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74(1):e20200135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Burhan E, Susanto AD, Nasution SA, Ginanjar E, Pitoyo CW, Susilo A et al. Pedoman Tatalaksana Covid-19. In: (PDPI) PDPI, (PERKI) PDSKI, (PAPDI) PDSPDI, Indonesia PDAdTI, (PERDATIN), (IDAI) IDAI, editors. 2 ed. Jakarta2020.

  31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Dollinger N, Wienrich C, Latoschik ME. Challenges and opportunities of Immersive technologies for mindfulness meditation: A systematic review. Front Virtual Real. 2021;2.

  33. Human factors in. Simulation and training. New York: CRC Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhong MH, Jiang JX, Zhang H, Duan X. Combination of flipped learning format and virtual simulation to enhance emergency response ability for newly registered nurses: a quasi-experimental design. Interact Learn Environ.14.

  35. Lee H-G, Chung S, Lee W-H. Presence in virtual golf simulators: the effects of presence on perceived enjoyment, perceived value, and behavioral intention. New Media & Society. 2012;15(6):930–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shin H, Rim D, Kim H, Park S, Shon S. Educational characteristics of virtual simulation in nursing: an integrative review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2019;37:18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hepperle D, Weiß Y, Siess A, Wölfel M. 2D, 3D or speech? A case study on which user interface is preferable for what kind of object interaction in immersive virtual reality. Computers & Graphics. 2019;82:321–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller HL, Bugnariu NL. Level of immersion in virtual environments impacts the ability to assess and teach social skills in autism spectrum disorder. Cyberpsychology Behav Social Netw. 2016;19(4):246–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kardong-Edgren S, Farra SL, Alinier G, Young HM. A call to unify definitions of virtual reality. Clin Simul Nurs. 2019;31:28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Campos PRBd, Neto EdBC, Moreno UF. Proposal of a new taxonomy of the psychomotor domain for the engineering laboratory. 3rd International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)2018.

  41. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives (handbook one). David McKay Company.Inc; 1956.

  42. Savickiene I. Conception of learning outcomes in the bloom’s taxonomy affective domain. Qual High Educ. 2010;7(7):37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Armstrong P. Bloom’s taxonomy: Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching; 2010 [Available from: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.

  44. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. updated February 2022. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 63 [Internet]. Cochrane. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  45. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L, Chapter. Systematic reviews of effectiveness. Volume 3. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mathur MB, VanderWeele TJ. Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analyses. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2020;69(5):1091–119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Marušić MF, Fidahić M, Cepeha CM, Farcaș LG, Tseke A, Puljak L. Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses: heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. BMJ: Br Med J. 2013;346:f4040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Borenstein M, Higgins JPT. Meta-analysis and subgroups. Prev Sci. 2013;14(2):134–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Egger M. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. 2021;372:n71.

  53. Chang KK, Chung JW, Wong TK. Learning intravenous cannulation: a comparison of the conventional method and the CathSim Intravenous Training System. J Clin Nurs. 2002;11(1):73–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chang C-C, Hwang G-J. An experiential learning-based virtual reality approach to fostering problem-resolving competence in professional training. Interact Learn Environ. 2021:1–16.

  55. Huang H, Hwang G-J, Chang S-C. Facilitating decision making in authentic contexts: an SVVR-based experiential flipped learning approach for professional training. Interact Learn Environ. 2021:1–17.

  56. Luo Y, Geng C, Chen X, Zhang Y, Zou Z, Bai J. Three learning modalities’ impact on clinical judgment and perceptions in newly graduated registered nurses: a quasi-experimental study. Nurs Health Sci. 2021;23(2):538–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang D, Liao H, Jia Y, Yang W, He P, Wang D, et al. Effect of virtual reality simulation training on the response capability of public health emergency reserve nurses in China: a quasiexperimental study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e048611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhong M, Jiang J, Zhang H, Duan X. Combination of flipped learning format and virtual simulation to enhance emergency response ability for newly registered nurses: a quasi-experimental design. Interact Learn Environ. 2021:1–14.

  59. Tsai S-L, Chai S-K, Hsieh L-F, Lin S, Taur F-M, Sung W-H, et al. The use of virtual reality computer Simulation in Learning Port-A Cath Injection. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2008;13(1):71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Green DA, editor. The Effect of Independent Computer-Based Simulation on Neonatal Resuscitation Skills2017.

  61. Wilfong DN, Falsetti DJ, McKinnon JL, Daniel LH, Wan QC. The effects of virtual intravenous and patient simulator training compared to the traditional approach of teaching nurses: a research project on peripheral i.v. catheter insertion. J infusion nursing: official publication Infusion Nurses Soc. 2011;34(1):55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pun SK, Chiang VC, Choi KS. A Computer-Based Method for Teaching Catheter-Access Hemodialysis Management. Computers, informatics, nursing: CIN. 2016;34(10):476–83.

  63. Liaw SY, Wong LF, Chan SW, Ho JT, Mordiffi SZ, Ang SB, et al. Designing and evaluating an interactive multimedia web-based simulation for developing nurses’ competencies in acute nursing care: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(1):e5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Roh YS, Lee WS, Chung HS, Park YM. The effects of simulation-based resuscitation training on nurses’ self-efficacy and satisfaction. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(2):123–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Harriman SL, Patel J. When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration. Trials. 2016;17(187):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objetives: the classification of educational goals: handbook I: cognitive domain. New York, US: D. Mckay; 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sim JJM, Rusli KDB, Seah B, Levett-Jones T, Lau Y, Liaw SY. Virtual Simulation to enhance clinical reasoning in nursing: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Clin Simul Nurs. 2022;69:26–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Chen FQ, Leng YF, Ge JF, Wang DW, Li C, Chen B, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e18290.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Rourke S. How does virtual reality simulation compare to simulated practice in the acquisition of clinical psychomotor skills for pre-registration student nurses? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;102:103466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Chen Y-L. The Effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic development. Asia-Pacific Educ Researcher. 2016;25(4):637–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Forsberg E, Ziegert K, Hult H, Fors U. Assessing progression of clinical reasoning through virtual patients: an exploratory study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;16(1):97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Campos PRBd, Neto EdBC, Moreno UF, editors. Proposal of a new taxonomy of the psychomotor domain for to the engineering laboratory. 2018 3rd International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE); 2018 27–29 June 2018.

  73. Nascimento J, Siqueira TV, Oliveira JLG, Alves MG, Regino D, Dalri MCB. Development of clinical competence in nursing in simulation: the perspective of Bloom’s taxonomy. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74(1):e20200135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lange AK, Koch J, Beck A, Neugebauer T, Watzema F, Wrona KJ, et al. Learning with virtual reality in nursing education: qualitative interview study among nursing students using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model. JMIR Nurs. 2020;3(1):e20249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Shorey S, Ng ED. The use of virtual reality simulation among nursing students and registered nurses: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;98:104662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Saab MM, Hegarty J, Murphy D, Landers M. Incorporating virtual reality in nurse education: a qualitative study of nursing students’ perspectives. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;105:105045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ouzouni C, Nakakis K. An exploratory study of student nurses’ empathy. Health Sci J. 2012;6(3):534.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Marín-Morales J, Llinares C, Guixeres J, Alcañiz M. Emotion recognition in immersive virtual reality: from statistics to affective computing. Sensors. 2020;20(18):5163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Stephens M, Ormandy P. An evidence-based Approach to Measuring Affective Domain Development. J Prof Nurs. 2019;35(3):216–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Krautscheid LC. Embedding Microethical Dilemmas in High-Fidelity Simulation scenarios: preparing nursing students for ethical practice. J Nurs Educ. 2017;56(1):55–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Kyaw BM, Saxena N, Posadzki P, Vseteckova J, Nikolaou CK, George PP, et al. Virtual reality for health professions education: systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(1):e12959.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Rourke S. How does virtual reality simulation compare to simulated practice in the acquisition of clinical psychomotor skills for pre-registration student nurses? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;102:103466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Nascimento JdSG, Siqueira TV, Oliveira JLGd, Alves MG, Regino DdSG, Dalri MCB. Development of clinical competence in nursing in simulation: the perspective of Bloom’s taxonomy. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem. 2021;74.

  84. Chavez B, Bayona S, editors. Virtual reality in the learning process2018:Springer.

  85. Zhao J, Xu X, Jiang H, Ding Y. The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Kim K-J, Frick TW. Changes in Student Motivation during Online Learning. J Educational Comput Res. 2011;44(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(6):549–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Rebenitsch L, Owen C. Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality. 2016;20(2):101–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Haerling KA. Cost-utility analysis of virtual and mannequin-based simulation. Simul Healthc. 2018;13(1):33–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Chang TP, Weiner D. Screen-based simulation and virtual reality for pediatric emergency medicine. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2016;17(3):224–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Spieth PM, Kubasch AS, Penzlin Ai K, Siepmann T. Randomized controlled trials – a matter of design. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2016;12:1341-9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues for the use of their databases to support our study and all the authors of our included studies. We also acknowledge Liya Arista, RN and Dr. Mei-Yu Lin for helping us to handle technical issue during study.

Funding

This research is funded by Directorate of Research and Development, Universitas Indonesia under Hibah PUTI 2022 (Grant No. NKB-743/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2022).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Indonesia & Nursing Department - Universitas Indonesia Hospital, Jl. Prof. Bahder Djohan, UI Campus, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

    Defi Efendi, Chiyar Edison Sunarya & Efa Apriyanti

  2. Institut Teknologi Kesehatan Cendekia Utama Kudus, Jl. Lingkar Timur No.Km.5, Jepang, Kec. Mejobo, Kabupaten Kudus, Central Java, Indonesia

    Renny Wulan Apriliyasari

  3. Nursing Department, Universitas Indonesia Hospital, Jl. Prof. Bahder Djohan, UI Campus, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

    Juliana Gracia Eka Prihartami Massie & Bejo Utomo

  4. The Nethersole School of Nursing - The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Cho Lee Wong

  5. School of Nursing, Mitra Bunda Health Institute, Jl. Raya Seraya Nomor No.1, Tlk. Tering, Kec. Batam Kota, Batam, Kepulauan Riau, Indonesia

    Regina Natalia

  6. Post-Baccalaureate Program in Nursing, College of Nursing, & Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei Medical University, No. 250 Wuxing Street, Xinyi District, 11031, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Kee-Hsin Chen

  7. Department of Nursing, Evidence-based Knowledge Translation Center, & Research Center in Nursing Clinical Practice, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kee-Hsin Chen

  8. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

    Kee-Hsin Chen

Authors
  1. Defi Efendi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renny Wulan Apriliyasari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juliana Gracia Eka Prihartami Massie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cho Lee Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Regina Natalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bejo Utomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chiyar Edison Sunarya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Efa Apriyanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kee-Hsin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.U., C.E., C.L.W., D.E., E.A., and J.G.M. conceptualization. D.E., R.N., and R.W.A. methodology. R. W. A software and formal analysis. B.U., C.E., E.A., J.G.M., and R.N. data curation. D.E., and C.L.W. validation. B.U., C.E., D.E., E.A., R.N., J.G.M., and R.W.A. writing - original draft. D.E., K.H.C., and C.L.W. writing – review and editing. D.E. supervision, and funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kee-Hsin Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interest

We declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Efendi, D., Apriliyasari, R.W., Prihartami Massie, J.G. et al. The effect of virtual reality on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes in nursing staffs: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs 22, 170 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01312-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01312-x

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us