ArticleBMC nursing2025
Surgical nurses' artificial intelligence literacy and readiness levels for medical artificial intelligence.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to analyse the correlation between surgical unit nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy levels and their medical artificial intelligence readiness.
methodThe study was descriptive, exploratory, and cross-sectional, and was conducted in Turkey with 339 nurses who were currently working in surgical units between June 2024 and June 2025. Online data collection via Google Forms was used, employing the Descriptive Characteristics Questionnaire, Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale, and Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software with descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation tests.
resultsThe mean age of the nurses was 34.35 ± 9.37; 85.5% were female. According to data, 85.5% of the participants heard of the term artificial intelligence at some point, while 73.2% indicated AI will also help the nursing profession. A large and strong positive correlation exists between AI literacy and readiness for medical AI (rₛ = 0.642, p < 0.001). At the subscale level, readiness was also found to be significantly correlated with technical understanding (rₛ = 0.606), critical evaluation (rₛ = 0.672), and practical application (rₛ = 0.558) (all p < 0.001).
conclusionThe research indicates that with the increase in nurses’ literacy level regarding artificial intelligence, the readiness for the medical application of artificial intelligence also increases. Education and awareness initiatives aimed at developing artificial intelligence literacy are recommended to support the effective and safe use of AI-based technologies in nursing practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.