ArticleBMC nursing2026
Empowering nursing students during AI era: educational strategies for enhancing knowledge and acceptance of artificial intelligence.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Health Sector: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards artificial intelligence among nursing students: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, Benefits, Risks, Barriers, Professional Impact, and Preparedness of Nursing Students Toward the Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly permeating health systems, yet undergraduate nursing students often report limited AI literacy and uncertainty about safe, appropriate use.
aimTo evaluate the effect of a standardized 10-session blended curriculum on nursing students’ AI knowledge and acceptance and to examine theory-consistent associations between knowledge and acceptance.
designOne-group pretest–posttest quasi-experimental study.
methodsA stratified random sample of undergraduates (n=1,000) from the Faculty of Nursing, Sohag University (Egypt) completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline and one month after the program. Outcomes were the AI Knowledge Scale (AIKS-16; 0–32) and the AI Acceptance Scale (AIA-34; 0–136) aligned with Technology Acceptance Model subdomains (Perceived Usefulness [PU], Perceived Ease of Use [PEOU], Attitude/Intention). Analyses used paired t-tests with 95% CIs and Cohen’s d; Pearson correlations; and exploratory ANCOVA adjusting for baseline to probe subgroup differences (sex, residence). Ethics approval: IRB 88-6-2023.
resultsKnowledge increased from 15.01±4.72 to 30.33±3.11 and acceptance from 67.02±13.47 to 122.33±9.21 (both p<0.001; large effects). Gains were observed across PU, PEOU, and Attitude/Intention. Post-test knowledge correlated strongly with acceptance (r=0.647, p<0.001). ANCOVA showed no educationally meaningful differences by sex or residence after adjustment (partial η2 ≤0.006). Knowledge-level transitions indicated marked movement from low/moderate to high categories.
conclusionsA standardized, fidelity-checked blended curriculum produced substantial and equitable improvements in AI knowledge and acceptance among undergraduate nursing students. Framed by the Technology Acceptance Model, results suggest that concept scaffolding, brief hands-on practice, and explicit disclosure/verification routines strengthen perceived usefulness and ease of use, supporting accountable AI adoption. Multi-site controlled studies with performance-based outcomes and longer follow-up are warranted.
trial registrationNot applicable. This was an educational pretest–posttest study with no clinical trial component.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.