Predicted Influences of Artificial Intelligence on Nursing Education: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is predicted that artificial intelligence (AI) will transform nursing across all domains of nursing practice, including administration, clinical care, education, policy, and research. Increasingly, researchers are exploring the potential influences of AI health technologies (AIHTs) on nursing in general and on nursing education more specifically. However, little emphasis has been placed on synthesizing this body of literature. OBJECTIVE: A scoping review was conducted to summarize the current and predicted influences of AIHTs on nursing education over the next 10 years and beyond. METHODS: This scoping review followed a previously published protocol from April 2020. Using an established scoping review methodology, the databases of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central, Education Resources Information Centre, Scopus, Web of Science, and Proquest were searched. In addition to the use of these electronic databases, a targeted website search was performed to access relevant grey literature. Abstracts and full-text studies were independently screened by two reviewers using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included literature focused on nursing education and digital health technologies that incorporate AI. Data were charted using a structured form and narratively summarized into categories. RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were identified (20 expository papers, six studies with quantitative or prototyping methods, and one qualitative study). The population included nurses, nurse educators, and nursing students at the entry-to-practice, undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels. A variety of AIHTs were discussed, including virtual avatar apps, smart homes, predictive analytics, virtual or augmented reality, and robots. The two key categories derived from the literature were (1) influences of AI on nursing education in academic institutions and (2) influences of AI on nursing education in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Curricular reform is urgently needed within nursing education programs in academic institutions and clinical practice settings to prepare nurses and nursing students to practice safely and efficiently in the age of AI. Additionally, nurse educators need to adopt new and evolving pedagogies that incorporate AI to better support students at all levels of education. Finally, nursing students and practicing nurses must be equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to effectively assess AIHTs and safely integrate those deemed appropriate to support person-centered compassionate nursing care in practice settings. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".