Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41637487›Full record

ArticleJMIR nursing2026

Perception of AI Symptom Models in Oncology Nursing: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study.

Bridget Nicholson, Elizabeth A Sloss, Aref Smiley, Joseph Finkelstein, Kathi Mooney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bridget Nicholson *College of Nursing, University of Utah, 10 2000 E, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-4709-4695
Elizabeth A Sloss *College of Nursing, University of Utah, 10 2000 E, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2071-5495
Aref SmileyCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1401 University Boulevard, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1077-2229
Joseph FinkelsteinCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1401 University Boulevard, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8084-7441
Kathi Mooney *College of Nursing, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3371-5646

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing cancer treatment experience a significant symptom burden. The standard process of symptom management includes patient reporting and clinical response following symptom escalation. Emerging predictive symptom models use artificial intelligence (AI) components of machine learning and deep learning to identify the risk of symptom deterioration, facilitating earlier intervention to prevent downstream effects. However, integrating predictive symptom models into clinical practice will require oncology nurses to adopt innovative approaches. Objective: This study aims to explore oncology nurses' perceptions of the use of predictive symptom models in cancer care and the factors influencing the adoption of this symptom care innovation. Methods: The evaluation was guided by the Rogers Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which describes the process of how individuals adopt new technologies. The investigators developed an interview guide that asked oncology nurses to rate their perceptions of AI symptom models on a Likert scale. Participants were also asked to provide qualitative comments to support their ratings for each question, in order to better understand the key factors that would influence AI predictive model adoption. Investigators analyzed demographic data and Likert ratings with descriptive statistics. Qualitative analysis of participant comments included content analysis and inductive coding to identify themes. Nurses' perception of factors that would influence the adoption of AI symptom models, based on the Rogers theory, included relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Results: Responses of 15 oncology nurses with more than 1 year of experience in oncology were analyzed. There was high agreement among nurse participants that an AI model could improve symptom management for patients with cancer (n=10, 67%) and increase early intervention to prevent the escalation of symptoms (n=12, 86%). All participants (N=15) agreed that receiving symptom information would be helpful. Nearly three-quarters of participants (n=11, 73%) endorsed that the information would save time. Most (n=12, 80%) recommended that clinicians receive information about the predicted symptom deterioration of their patients. Among open-ended responses, key themes were consistent with factors identified in the Diffusion of Innovation theory including: (1) perceptions related to the AI model (compatibility or complexity), (2) nurses' perception of patients' benefit (observability), (3) improved clinical processes (relative advantage or observability), (4) apprehension over model accuracy and impact (compatibility or trialability or observability), and (5) implementation or adoption (trialability or complexity or observability). Conclusions: Oncology nurses agree that predictive symptom models could help improve symptom management for patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, nurses noted that transparency in the factors included in the AI model was essential, that nurses should be involved in the development and testing of models, and that the observability of the benefit in symptom care would need to be evident for ultimate adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsOncology NursingPerceptionSymptom AssessmentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesAIartificial intelligenceimplementationnursingoncologysymptom management

Identifiers

PMID41637487
PMCPMC12871576

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.