Evolution of Chatbots in Nursing Education: Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The integration of chatbots in nursing education is a rapidly evolving area with potential transformative impacts. This narrative review aims to synthesize and analyze the existing literature on chatbots in nursing education. Objective: This study aims to comprehensively examine the temporal trends, international distribution, study designs, and implications of chatbots in nursing education. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. Results: A total of 40 articles met the eligibility criteria, with a notable increase of publications in 2023 (n=28, 70%). Temporal analysis revealed a notable surge in publications from 2021 to 2023, emphasizing the growing scholarly interest. Geographically, Taiwan province made substantial contributions (n=8, 20%), followed by the United States (n=6, 15%) and South Korea (n=4, 10%). Study designs varied, with reviews (n=8, 20%) and editorials (n=7, 18%) being predominant, showcasing the richness of research in this domain. Conclusions: Integrating chatbots into nursing education presents a promising yet relatively unexplored avenue. This review highlights the urgent need for original research, emphasizing the importance of ethical considerations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".