SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
A Meta-synthesis of nursing students' experiences with generative artificial intelligence-assisted learning.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the real experiences of nursing students participating in generative artificial intelligence-assisted learning. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, Scopus, Wanfang Data, and the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL databases for qualitative studies on the experiences of nursing students with generative AI-assisted learning from the establishment of the databases to March 2026. Qualitative studies on nursing students' experiences with generative AI-assisted learning were screened, appraised, and synthesized using thematic synthesis. Results: Eighteen studies were included in the synthesis. A total of 49 themes were identified and organized into 13 categories, leading to four integrated findings: (1) dual experience of empowerment and challenges, (2) internal conflict between technology and nursing humanism, (3) user experience differentiation amid Practical Constraints, (4) general demand for supporting systems and educational reform. Conclusion: This study found that nursing students' experiences with generative AI are shaped by both the opportunities and challenges associated with its use in learning. These findings highlight the need for nursing educators to strengthen students' AI literacy, critical thinking, and ethical awareness, for curriculum designers to integrate AI-related competencies into nursing curricula while maintaining a strong emphasis on humanistic care, and for policymakers to establish clear governance frameworks and educational guidelines to support the responsible use of AI in nursing education. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261367837, identifier CRD420261367837.
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.