SynthesisJournal of nursing management2026
Artificial Intelligence Anxiety Levels Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of nursing management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Anxiety Levels Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into various aspects of healthcare delivery, from diagnostics to patient management. While these advancements offer significant benefits, they also raise anxiety among healthcare professionals regarding job security, ethical implications, and changes in clinical decision-making. Despite the growing importance of this issue, there is limited consensus among healthcare professionals regarding the overall level of anxiety about AI.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess healthcare professionals' anxiety about AI. This study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251017693). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, and Wiley Online Library databases up to April 2025. Studies focusing on healthcare professionals' levels of anxiety about AI were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool. In the analyses, effect sizes were calculated using the random effects model, while heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias were assessed via Cochrane's Q, I
resultsNine studies involving 1877 healthcare professionals were included in the systematic review, and five studies (n = 926) that met the criteria were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the mean score on the AI anxiety scale was 59.26 (95% CI = 40.54-77.97), indicating that healthcare professionals generally experience a moderate level of AI-related anxiety. A statistically significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies (I
conclusionWhile it can be suggested that healthcare professionals experience moderate to high levels of anxiety towards AI technologies, the high heterogeneity observed across the included studies makes it difficult to draw a generalized conclusion. The study highlights the necessity of proactive measures, including education and organizational support, to build healthcare professionals' confidence and readiness for AI adoption.
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.