Using ChatGPT in Nursing: Scoping Review of Current Opinions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, this emerging technology has garnered a lot of attention in various fields, and nursing is no exception. However, to date, no study has comprehensively summarized the status and opinions of using ChatGPT across different nursing fields. Objective: We aim to synthesize the status and opinions of using ChatGPT according to different nursing fields, as well as assess ChatGPT's strengths, weaknesses, and the potential impacts it may cause. Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). A comprehensive literature research was conducted in 4 web-based databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINHAL) to identify studies reporting the opinions of using ChatGPT in nursing fields from 2022 to September 3, 2023. The references of the included studies were screened manually to further identify relevant studies. Two authors conducted studies screening, eligibility assessments, and data extraction independently. Results: A total of 30 studies were included. The United States (7 studies), Canada (5 studies), and China (4 studies) were countries with the most publications. In terms of fields of concern, studies mainly focused on "ChatGPT and nursing education" (20 studies), "ChatGPT and nursing practice" (10 studies), and "ChatGPT and nursing research, writing, and examination" (6 studies). Six studies addressed the use of ChatGPT in multiple nursing fields. Conclusions: As an emerging artificial intelligence technology, ChatGPT has great potential to revolutionize nursing education, nursing practice, and nursing research. However, researchers, institutions, and administrations still need to critically examine its accuracy, safety, and privacy, as well as academic misconduct and potential ethical issues that it may lead to before applying ChatGPT to practice.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".