MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415329681 · doi:10.1111/jan.70296

Nurse Leadership and Artificial Intelligence Integration in Nursing Workforce Management: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4415329681 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Kiwanuka, Simone Stevanin, Ahtisham Younas, Brenda Owusu, Anu Nurmeksela, Tarja Kvist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSairaanhoitajien koulutussäätiö
KeywordsWorkforceNurse AdministratorMEDLINEWorkforce planningNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To systematically map evidence on the application of AI systems in nursing workforce management, with a targeted focus on the role of nurse leaders. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across six databases: CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies published in English between January 2015 and December 2024 were included. REVIEW METHODS: Studies that focused on AI in the context of nursing leadership or workforce management were included, while those examining AI in healthcare but without a specific focus on nursing leadership/management were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 1014 articles were retrieved, and 12 were included in this review. Eleven articles were published between 2022 and 2024. The findings show that AI systems in nursing management have been applied in several domains, including workforce planning, nursing safety, and staff prediction models. Although studies highlight the positive optimising potential of AI systems, others underscore the ethical implications of AI with respect to nursing leadership and management, particularly regarding discriminatory stereotypes in AI-generated nurse imagery and the critical role of nurse leaders in ethical AI integration in care. Only one study identified important barriers to AI integration, underlining the need for enhanced AI training for nurse managers. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggests that the application of AI systems in nursing leadership/management is in its early phases, with limited engagement of nurses in innovating and implementing AI-enabled systems. A substantial problem related to AI adoption remains-AI integration hinges on addressing the readiness and engagement levels of nurse leaders early on in the process of AI systems' innovation. To promote AI integration, AI competency, trust, and optimisation in healthcare, developing a basic working understanding of AI together with a culture of multidisciplinary AI development teams that include nurses are potentially proactive strategies. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guideline. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.306
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207