ArticleBMC medical education2026
The readiness-anxiety paradox in artificial intelligence adoption among nursing students: a multidimensional regression analysis.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study examined the relationship between medical artificial intelligence readiness and AI-related anxiety among nursing students following surgical nursing education.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 252 nursing students from two universities who had completed surgical diseases nursing courses. Data were collected between February and July 2024 using the Artificial Intelligence Anxiety Scale and the Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale. Group comparisons, correlation analyses, and hierarchical regression analysis models were performed.
resultsOur findings indicate a notable "awareness-apprehension paradox": higher ability (technical readiness) was associated with lower learning anxiety (B = - 0.25, p < .01), whereas higher ethics (ethical readiness) was associated with greater concerns regarding job replacement (B = 0.41, p < .001) and anxiety. Female students had significantly higher anxiety scores, and regular AI use was associated with greater readiness. AI utilization and sociotechnical perceptions together accounted for variance in readiness outcomes. Higher levels of medical AI readiness were not uniformly associated with lower anxiety; instead, increased readiness coexisted with elevated concerns in specific anxiety dimensions, indicating a complex association between technological preparedness and psychological adaptation.
conclusionThe results suggest that developing technical competence alone may not be sufficient to align with confident technology adoption. They further indicate that, in the absence of corresponding organizational safeguards, ethical awareness may function more as a "cognitive demand" than as a resource. The study adds to the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework by illustrating the dual nature of AI readiness. Nursing education programs may therefore benefit from integrating ethical reflection, critical technological awareness, and psychological preparedness alongside AI skill development to support sustainable implementation of AI-supported clinical practice.
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.