ArticleJMIR nursing2026
Assessing Digital Literacy Among Nursing Faculty Under the Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework: Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis.
Article in JMIR 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital literacy has become a core competence for nursing faculty to adapt to the digital transformation of education, improve teaching quality, and cultivate innovative nursing talents. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the digital literacy status and influencing factors among nursing faculty in colleges and universities in Fujian province, China. Methods: A cross-sectional survey analysis was conducted among 339 participants from July 2023 to June 2024 by selecting nursing faculty from 3 medical universities and 5 colleges in Fujian province. A general information questionnaire and a teacher digital literacy questionnaire (designed based on the artificial intelligence-enhanced technological pedagogical content knowledge theoretical model) were used to conduct the survey. The questionnaires included the following dimensions: an intelligent integration ethics layer (digital social responsibility), attention to the moral boundaries of applying technology; an awareness layer (digital awareness), the willingness to actively adapt to technological changes; a knowledge layer (digital technology knowledge and skills), mastery of the integration point of intelligent tools and subject teaching; an ability layer (digital application), the ability to design intelligent teaching plans; and a thinking layer (professional development; innovative thinking for the critical integration of technology). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, a 1-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression (using SPSS 28.0 software). Results: The overall digital literacy of the nursing faculty was at a medium level (mean score 101.92, SD 16.47), with the highest score in digital awareness (mean 20.21, SD 9.43) and the lowest score in digital technology knowledge and skills (mean 9.68, SD 2.92). For the dimension of digital technology knowledge and skills, both age (β=-.142; P=.009) and years of teaching (β=-.147; P=.006) were significant negative predictors. Regarding digital application, age was found to be a significant negative predictor (β=-0.124; P=.02) but teaching experience was a positive predictor (β=0.123, P=.02). Similarly, age also had a significant negative impact on the professional development dimension (β=-.153; P=.005) and the overall digital literacy level (β=-.136; P=.01). Conclusions: The digital literacy of nursing faculty is at a medium level, with especially low scores in technical knowledge. Age and teaching experience are key influencing factors. Recommendations to promote balanced development of awareness and skills include providing targeted training for senior faculty, integrating courses with clinical practice, optimizing the allocation of digital resources, promoting interdisciplinary cooperation, and strengthening ethical and safety training.
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.