ArticleBMC nursing2026
Knowledge and attitudes regarding AI-assisted documentation among clinical nurses in China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChina’s ageing population, shortage of nursing staff and rising care demands have created a substantial documentation burden for clinical nurses, undermining care quality and nurses’ physical and mental health. AI is widely viewed as a potential means to reduce this burden, yet nurses’ knowledge of and attitudes toward AI-assisted documentation remain poorly characterised.
objectiveTo characterise Chinese clinical nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding AI-assisted documentation and to assess associations with gender, age, education and AI-related training.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey of clinical nurses in 15 tertiary hospitals across seven provincial-level administrative regions in China using convenience sampling. A self-administered questionnaire, developed from a literature review and Delphi expert consultation, comprised three sections-demographic information, knowledge of AI-assisted documentation and attitudes-with 21 items in total. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, t tests or one-way analysis of variance and multiple linear regression.
resultsOf 600 returned questionnaires, 492 were valid (effective response rate 82.0%). The mean AI knowledge score was 10.74 ± 5.04 (maximum 20), indicating generally low knowledge. Nurses showed relatively high awareness of risks, such as fabricated AI-generated content and the need for professional review of AI outputs, but limited understanding of prompt design and basic tool functions. The mean attitude score was 24.48 ± 10.00 (maximum 44), indicating an overall cautious and conditional acceptance attitude: most nurses were willing to use AI for documentation in the future but expressed marked concerns about privacy protection and the originality of AI-assisted content. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses identified age, education and AI-related training as significant correlates of knowledge and attitudes (p < 0.05), with training showing the strongest association (p < 0.001). Knowledge and attitudes were positively correlated (p < 0.001).
conclusionChinese clinical nurses had limited knowledge and elevated risk perception regarding AI-assisted documentation but reported cautious and conditional acceptance attitudes overall. AI-related training was associated with higher knowledge and more positive attitudes; however, given the cross-sectional design, this association may reflect prior interest or exposure rather than a causal effect. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.