SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare-A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identify the experiences and perceptions of healthcare professionals on artificial intelligence in healthcare.
designSystematic literature review of qualitative studies and meta-aggregation. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Medic and ProQuest were systematically searched on December 9, 2024.
resultsTwenty-six studies were included in the review, of which 25 were analysed using meta-aggregation, and the results of one study were reported narratively. A total of 185 findings were identified from the included studies that addressed the research question. These findings were aggregated into 33 categories and then into five synthesised findings as follows: (1) Perceived benefits of AI in healthcare; (2) Perceived impact of AI on professional roles and workforce dynamics; (3) Perceived impacts of AI in communication and interaction; (4) Perceived challenges of AI related to technical, financial and systemic factors; (5) Perceived ethical, cultural and regulatory considerations regarding the use of AI.
conclusionWhile AI holds significant potential to enhance efficiency and improve patient outcomes, it is essential to address the concerns raised by healthcare professionals regarding workforce dynamics, communication and ethical considerations. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: The results can inform and support the implementation of AI in healthcare and the development of AI-related education and training to meet the demands of future healthcare work. REPORTING
methodThe review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD1073200).
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.