Understanding Nurses' Intention to Use Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Their Clinical Practice: A Survey‐Based Configurational Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The study focused on nurses' familiarity with, beliefs about, and attitudes towards artificial intelligence, aiming to identify configurations of necessary and sufficient conditions associated with strong intentions to use artificial intelligence-based health technologies in their clinical practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted online from mid-October 2023 through early February 2024. METHODS: The fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis method was employed to analyse the survey data. DATA SOURCE: 307 members of the professional order of nurses in Québec province, Canada. RESULTS: Findings from the qualitative comparative analysis show that strong intentions to use artificial intelligence are only observed when nurses perceive artificial intelligence to have a high impactfulness on their future clinical practice (necessary condition). Moreover, we observe three configurations of sufficient conditions, that is, three combinations (artificial intelligence profiles) of familiarity with, belief about, trust in, and perceived impactfulness of artificial intelligence. CONCLUSION: Current curriculum efforts have centred on defining artificial intelligence competencies, yet competency alone does not guarantee a willingness to adopt artificial intelligence tools. Our findings indicate that a positive attitude towards artificial intelligence's potential impact is crucial, with various profiles supporting intentions to adopt artificial intelligence. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: These findings suggest that nurses' preparation should go beyond developing artificial intelligence competencies and that nursing educators and trainers need to account for the different profiles associated with strong intentions to use artificial intelligence technologies. Training programmes and nursing curricula should prioritise shaping nurses' beliefs and attitudes about artificial intelligence rather than focusing solely on technical skills. IMPACT: We contribute to nursing research by showing that a positive attitude towards artificial intelligence's impactfulness on nurses' future clinical practice is a necessary condition for having high intentions to use artificial intelligence technologies. REPORTING METHOD: Relevant guidelines have been adhered to by employing recommended qualitative comparative analysis reporting methods. 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".