Predicted Influences of Artificial Intelligence on the Domains of Nursing: Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to transform the health system, yet little research to date has explored its influence on nurses-the largest group of health professionals. Furthermore, there has been little discussion on how AI will influence the experience of person-centered compassionate care for patients, families, and caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize the extant literature on the emerging trends in health technologies powered by AI and their implications on the following domains of nursing: administration, clinical practice, policy, and research. This review summarizes the findings from 3 research questions, examining how these emerging trends might influence the roles and functions of nurses and compassionate nursing care over the next 10 years and beyond. METHODS: Using an established scoping review methodology, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central, Education Resources Information Center, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched. In addition to the electronic database searches, a targeted website search was performed to access relevant gray literature. Abstracts and full-text studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included articles focused on nursing and digital health technologies that incorporate AI. Data were charted using structured forms and narratively summarized. RESULTS: A total of 131 articles were retrieved from the scoping review for the 3 research questions that were the focus of this manuscript (118 from database sources and 13 from targeted websites). Emerging AI technologies discussed in the review included predictive analytics, smart homes, virtual health care assistants, and robots. The results indicated that AI has already begun to influence nursing roles, workflows, and the nurse-patient relationship. In general, robots are not viewed as replacements for nurses. There is a consensus that health technologies powered by AI may have the potential to enhance nursing practice. Consequently, nurses must proactively define how person-centered compassionate care will be preserved in the age of AI. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses have a shared responsibility to influence decisions related to the integration of AI into the health system and to ensure that this change is introduced in a way that is ethical and aligns with core nursing values such as compassionate care. Furthermore, nurses must advocate for patient and nursing involvement in all aspects of the design, implementation, and evaluation of these technologies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/17490.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it