Submitted:
26 August 2025
Posted:
27 August 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. IVRS Speak-Up Program
2.2.1. Development Process of the IVRS Speak-Up Training Program
2.2.2. Description of the IVRS Speak-Up Training Program
2.3. Participants and Setting
2.4. Measurements
2.4.1. Communication Clarity
2.4.2. Collaborative Attitudes
2.4.3. Experience of Nursing Malpractice
2.5. Comparison with the Control Group
2.6. Implementation of the IVRS Speak-Up Training Program in the Experimental Group
2.7. Data Collection
2.8. Ethical Considerations
2.9. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Homogeneity Verification of the Experimental and Control Groups
3.2. Effectiveness Evaluation of the IVRS Speak-Up Training Program
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| BP | Blood Pressure |
| Bpm | Beat per Minute |
| BT | Body Temperature |
| CUS | Concerned, Uncomfortable, Safety |
| GAS | Gather, Analyze, Summarize |
| GS | General Surgery |
| HMD | Head-mounted Display |
| HR | Heart Rate |
| INACSL | International Nursing Association of Clinical Simulation and Learning |
| ISBAR | Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation |
| IV | Intravenous |
| IVRS | Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation |
| JP | Jackson-Pratt |
| O2 | Oxygen |
| OP | Operation |
| PCA | Patient-controlled Analgesia |
| POD | Postoperative Day |
| PRN | as needed |
| RR | Respiration Rate |
| TeamSTEPPS | Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety |
| VR | Virtual Reality |
| VRS | Virtual Reality Simulation |
| 3D | Three-dimensional |
References
- Okuyama, A.; Wagner, C.; Bijnen, B. Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: a literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 61. [CrossRef]
- Nakatani, K.; Nakagami-Yamaguchi, E.; Hagawa, N.; Tokuwame, A.; Ehara, S.; Nishimura, T.; Mizobata, Y. Evaluation of a new patient safety educational programme to reduce adverse events by encouraging staff to speak up: application of the trigger tool methodology. BMJ Open Qual. 2024, 13, e002162. [CrossRef]
- McCoy, L.; Lewis, J.H.; Simon, H.; Sackett, D.; Dajani, T.; Morgan, C.; Hunt, A. Learning to speak up for patient safety: interprofessional scenarios for training future healthcare professionals. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2020, 7, 2382120520935469. [CrossRef]
- Abdelaziz, E.M.; Diab, I.A.; Ouda, M.M.A.; Elsharkawy, N.B.; Abdelkader, F.A. The effectiveness of assertiveness training program on psychological wellbeing and work engagement among novice psychiatric nurses. Nurs. Forum 2020, 55, 309–319. [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.; De Gagne, J.C.; Randall, P.S.; Kim, H.; Tuttle, B. Effectiveness of speak-up training programs for clinical nurses: a scoping review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2022, 136, 104375. [CrossRef]
- Jeong, J.H.; Kim, S.S. South Korean Nurses' experiences of speaking up for patient safety and incident prevention. Healthcare (Basel) 2023, 11. [CrossRef]
- Law, B.Y.; Chan, E.A. The experience of learning to speak up: a narrative inquiry on newly graduated registered nurses. J. Clin. Nurs. 2015, 24, 1837–1848. [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, N. An integrative review: instructional strategies to improve nurses' retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation priorities. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 2015, 12. [CrossRef]
- Chou, C.H.; Tai, H.C.; Chen, S.L. The effects of introducing virtual reality communication simulation in students' learning in a fundamentals of nursing practicum: a pragmatic randomized control trials. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2024, 74, 103837. [CrossRef]
- Qiao, J.; Xu, J.; Li, L.; Ouyang, Y.Q. The integration of immersive virtual reality simulation in interprofessional education: A scoping review. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 98, 104773. [CrossRef]
- Shorey, S.; Ng, E.D. The use of virtual reality simulation among nursing students and registered nurses: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 98, 104662. [CrossRef]
- Kiegaldie, D.; Shaw, L. Virtual reality simulation for nursing education: effectiveness and feasibility. BMC Nurs. 2023, 22, 488. [CrossRef]
- Mazur, L.; Butler, L.; Mitchell, C.; Lashani, S.; Buchanan, S.; Fenison, C.; Adapa, K.; Tan, X.; An, S.; Ra, J. Effect of immersive virtual reality teamwork training on safety behaviors during surgical cases: nonrandomized intervention versus controlled pilot study. JMIR Med. Educ. 2025, 11, e66186. [CrossRef]
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. TeamSTEPPS 3.0. team strategies & tools to enhance performance and patient safety. Available online: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/issue/teamstepps-strategies-and-tools-enhance-performance-and-patient-safety (accessed on 7 June 2024).
- Lee, S.; Sohn, S. Relationship between assertiveness and attitudes toward nurse-physician collaboration in general hospital nurses. J. East-West Nur. Res. 2015, 21, 156–164. [CrossRef]
- Marshall, S.; Harrison, J.; Flanagan, B. The teaching of a structured tool improves the clarity and content of interprofessional clinical communication. Qual. Saf. Health Care 2009, 18, 137–140. [CrossRef]
- Hur, H.K.; Kim, J.; Jung, J.S. Enhancing nursing team communication and collaboration: Impact of immersive virtual reality simulation on nursing students. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2025, 102, 101685. [CrossRef]
- Watts, P.I.; Rossler, K.; Bowler, F.; Miller, C.; Charnetski, M.; Decker, S.; Molloy, M.A.; Persico, L.; McMahon, E.; McDermott, D.; et al. Onward and upward: introducing the healthcare simulation standards of best PracticeTM. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021, 58, 1–4. [CrossRef]
- Lima, I.B.; Jeong, Y.; Lee, C.; Suh, G.; Hwang, W. Correlation between number of usability problems and System Usability Scale (SUS) score. Proceedings of 2020 Fall Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Korea 2020, 2020, 191–194.
- Yu, M.; Yang, M.; Ku, B.; Mann, J.S. Effects of virtual reality simulation program regarding high-risk neonatal infection control on nursing students. Asian Nurs. Res. (Korean Soc. Nurs. Sci) 2021, 15, 189–196. [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Science and ICT, National IT Industry Promotion Agency. VR·AR device production and use guidelines. Available online: https://www.nipa.kr/home/2-7-1-1/8150 (accessed on 7 June 2024).
- Cho, H.J. The Effect of ISBAR program education on a nurse's communication clarify and self expression. Master's thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, 2013.
- Hojat, M.; Fields, S.K.; Veloski, J.J.; Griffiths, M.; Cohen, M.J.; Plumb, J.D. Psychometric properties of an attitude scale measuring physician-nurse collaboration. Eval. Health Prof. 1999, 22, 208–220. [CrossRef]
- Chen, A.S.; Yau, B.; Revere, L.; Swails, J. Implementation, evaluation, and outcome of TeamSTEPPS in interprofessional education: a scoping review. J. Interprof. Care 2019, 33, 795–804. [CrossRef]
- Liaw, S.Y.; Ooi, S.W.; Rusli, K.D.B.; Lau, T.C.; Tam, W.W.S.; Chua, W.L. Nurse-physician communication team training in virtual reality versus live simulations: randomized controlled trial on team communication and teamwork attitudes. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e17279. [CrossRef]
- Rash, I.; Shi, K.; Sussel, R.; Smith, R.; Thompson, S.; Cai, E.; Nguyen, T.D.; Cheng, J.; Gong, W.; Farahmand, S.; et al. Virtual 3D simulation technology for interprofessional team training. Simul. Gaming 2023, 55, 281–301. [CrossRef]
- Hanson, J.; Walsh, S.; Mason, M.; Wadsworth, D.; Framp, A.; Watson, K. 'Speaking up for safety': a graded assertiveness intervention for first year nursing students in preparation for clinical placement: thematic analysis. Nurse Educ. Today 2020, 84, 104252. [CrossRef]
- Bradley, C.S.; Aebersold, M.; Diclimente, L.; Flaten, C.; Muehlbauer, M.K.; Loomis, A. Breaking boundaries: How immersive virtual reality is reshaping nursing education. J. Nurs. Regul. 2024, 15, 28–37. [CrossRef]
- Aitken, J.A.; Torres, E.M.; Kaplan, S.A.; DiazGranados, D.; Su, L.; Parker, S.H. Influence of simulation-based training on reflective practice. BMJ Simul. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2021, 7, 638–640. [CrossRef]




| Categories | Experimental group (n = 18) |
Control group (n = 18) |
t/χ2 (p) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) or M ± SD | ||||
| General characteristics | ||||
| Male | 3 (17) | 6 (33) | 1.33 (0.443)a | |
| Female | 15 (83) | 12 (67) | ||
| Age (years) | 23.39 ± 1.46 | 24.72 ± 2.99 | 1.70 (0.101) | |
| Clinical experience (months) | 2.61 ± 0.71 | 1.94 ± 1.00 | 1.42 (0.166) | |
| Yes | 4 (22) | 5 (28) | 0.15 (1.000)a | |
| No | 14 (88) | 13 (72) | ||
| Baseline outcome variables | ||||
| Communication clarity | 4.21 ± 0.59 | 4.13 ± 0.49 | 0.46 (0.646) | |
| Collaborative attitudes | 3.58 ± 0.22 | 3.44 ± 0.29 | 1.57 (0.126) | |
| Outcome variables | Groups | Pretest | Post-test 1 | Post-test 2 | Post-test 1: Pretest | Post-test 2: Pretest | Source | F (p) η²p [95% CI] |
|
| M ± SD | Z (p) [95% CI] |
Z (p) [95% CI] |
|||||||
| Communication clarity |
Experimental (n = 18) |
4.21 ± 0.59 | 4.64 ± 0.48 | 4.42 ± 0.43 | 2.70 (0.007) a [0.12, 0.74] |
1.61 (0.108) a [−0.04, 0.46] |
G | 0.31 (0.580) 0.009 [0.000, 0.112] |
|
| Control (n = 18) |
4.13 ± 0.49 | 4.46 ± 0.49 | 4.47 ± 0.53 | 2.59 (0.010) a [0.08, 0.58] |
2.85 (0.004) a [0.11, 0.57] |
T | 9.42 (<0.001) 0.217 [0.078, 0.380] |
||
| Between-group comparison Z (p), r |
0.43 (0.668) b, 0.07 | 1.27 (0.203) b, 0.21 | 0.68 (0.495) b, 0.11 | G × T | 0.84 (0.437) 0.024 [0.000, 0.141] |
||||
| Collaborative attitudes |
Experimental (n = 18) |
3.58 ± 0.22 | 3.78 ± 0.17 | 3.75 ± 0.17 | 3.31 (0.001) a [0.08, 0.32] |
2.97 (0.003) a [0.06, 0.29] |
G | 9.22 (0.005) 0.213 [0.047, 0.380] |
|
| Control (n = 18) |
3.44 ± 0.29 | 3.44 ± 0.37 | 3.56 ± 0.26 | 0.20 (0.842) a [−0.12, 0.12] |
1.88 (0.060) a [−0.01, 0.25] |
T | 7.76 (0.001) 0.186 [0.055, 0.343] |
||
| Between-group comparison Z (p), r |
1.48 (0.139) b, 0.25 | 2.79 (0.005) b, 0.47 | 2.35 (0.019) b, 0.39 | G × T | 4.23 (0.020) 0.111 [0.007, 0.264] |
||||
| Experience of nursing malpractice | Experimental (n = 18) |
0.50 ± 0.62 | |||||||
| Control (n = 18) |
0.72 ± 1.07 | ||||||||
| Between-group comparison Z (p), r |
0.16 (0.872) b, 0.03 | ||||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).