Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40545441›Full record

SynthesisInternational nursing review2025

Artificial Intelligence in Health Education and Practice: A Systematic Review of Health Students' and Academics' Knowledge, Perceptions and Experiences.

Sara Shishehgar, Pauline Murray-Parahi, Ethar Alsharaydeh, Sarah Mills, Xianliang Liu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International nursing review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sara ShishehgarSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8594-4363
Pauline Murray-ParahiFaculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6444-1150
Ethar AlsharaydehSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1055-3250
Sarah MillsFaculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5150-1214
Xianliang LiuSchool of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3296-5339

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) is embedded in healthcare education and practice. Pre-service training on AI technologies allows health professionals to identify the best use of AI. This systematic review explores health students'/academics' perception of using AI in their practice. The authors aimed to identify any gaps in the health curriculum related to AI training that may need to be addressed.

methodsMedline (EBSCO), Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched using key terms including health students, health academics, AI, and higher education. Quantitative and qualitative studies published in the last seven years were reviewed. JBI SUMARI was used to facilitate study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of included articles. Thematic and descriptive data analyses were used to retrieve data. This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023448005).

resultsTwelve studies, including seven quantitative and five mixed-method studies, provided novel insights into health students' perceptions of using AI in health education or practice. Quantitative findings reported significant variations in attitudes and literacy levels regarding AI across different disciplines and demographics. Senior students and those with doctoral degrees exhibited more favourable outlooks compared with their less experienced counterparts (p < 0.001). Students intending to pursue careers in research demonstrated greater optimism towards AI adoption than those planning to work in clinical practice (p < 0.001). A review of qualitative data, particularly on nursing discipline, revealed four themes, including limited AI literacy, replacement of health specialties with AI vs. providing support, optimism vs. cautiousness about using AI in practice, and ethical concerns. Only one study explored health academics' experiences with AI in education, highlighting a gap in the current literature. This is while that students consistently agreed that universities are the best setting for learning about AI technologies in healthcare highlighting the need for embedding AI training into the health curricula to prepare future healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING/HEALTH POLICY: This systematic review recommends embedding AI training in health curriculum, offering direction for health education providers and curriculum developers responsible for preparing next-generation healthcare professionals, particularly nurses. Ethical considerations and the future role of AI in healthcare practice remain central concerns to be addressed in both curriculum development and future research. Further research is required to address the implication and cost-effectiveness of embedding AI training into health curricula.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth EducationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeStudents, Health OccupationsAdultCurriculumFacultyFemaleHumansMaleartificial intelligencehealth academicshealth studentshigher education

Identifiers

PMID40545441
PMCPMC12183008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.