Exploring the Intersection of Nursing Leadership and Artificial Intelligence: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: As artificial intelligence (AI) technology permeates health care settings, nurse leaders must position themselves to shape its development, implementation, and impact, guiding meaningful change that benefits nurses and care delivery. Nurse leaders possess the capacity to influence decisions, shape practice, and ensure the delivery of ethical, safe, and high-quality care. While AI technology is reshaping many aspects of health care delivery, there is limited knowledge on how nurse leaders perceive and experience this shift. Objective: This scoping review aimed to explore the intersection of nursing leadership and AI technology in health care by mapping current evidence, identifying key concepts, and highlighting knowledge gaps within the literature. Methods: This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported on using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. A systematic search of 4 electronic databases (CINAHL [EBSCO Information Services], Ovid MEDLINE [Wolters Kluwer], PsycINFO [American Psychological Association], and Scopus [Elsevier]) was conducted for English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between 2014 and 2025. Gray literature was also reviewed. Articles were included if they met the inclusion criteria by exploring the population of nurse leaders and the concept of AI technology within the context of health care settings and were published in English from May 2014 forward. A total of 26 articles were included in the analysis. Qualitative content analysis and numerical summary supported the inductive identification and synthesis of data categories. Results: Of the 26 articles included, 8 were empirical (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods), and 18 were conceptual or theoretical articles. Although 1 article was Canadian, there were no empirical studies conducted by Canadian researchers. The qualitative content analysis of the primary search findings revealed 6 overarching data categories: (1) leading digital transformation and technology integration, (2) AI technology and the nursing role: reshaping practice, (3) ethical considerations of AI technology for nurse leaders, (4) AI technology as a facilitator of innovative leadership, (5) education and training on AI technology in nursing practice, and (6) influence of AI technology on the work environment. Conclusions: This review confirms that nurse leaders play an essential role in shaping the future of health care in the context of AI technology. Although this review highlights a growing recognition of nursing leadership as a crucial driver of AI technology integration in health care, there is a lack of research to guide practice, policy, and leadership development through education, despite emerging interest and a recent increase in empirical work. The findings accentuate the need for increased investment in nurse-led research and leadership development to ensure that AI systems are designed, implemented, and evaluated in a manner that upholds ethical care, equity, and professional nursing values. As health care systems increasingly adopt AI technology, nurse leaders must be equipped with the knowledge, tools, and support required to lead transformative change and act as AI technology directors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,130 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,040 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».