ArticleBMC medical education2026
Exploring the role of ChatGPT in artificial intelligence literacy: a study on usage and acceptance among nursing students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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.
- The Associations of AI Literacy, AI Self-Efficacy and AI Attitudes Among Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Path Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence into nursing education has heightened the importance of AI literacy as a core competency. This study aimed to answer the focused research question: What is the relationship between ChatGPT use and acceptance in relation to AI literacy among nursing students? MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional design was employed, utilising self-report questionnaires administered to 436 nursing students at the Faculty of Nursing at Adnan Menderes University, located in the city of Aydın in Turkey, in June 2024. Data were collected using convenience sampling, including the Student Introduction Form and two validated and reliable scales: the ‘Generative Artificial Intelligence Acceptance Scale’ and the ‘Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale’. To assess the normality of the data, skewness and kurtosis values (within the range of ± 2) were considered. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and a simple linear regression analyses, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe mean AI literacy score was 60.43 ± 9.91, while the mean ChatGPT acceptance score was 68.20 ± 15.14. Nearly all students (99.8%) reported daily use of AI tools. A moderate positive correlation was observed between ChatGPT acceptance and AI literacy (r = 0.327, p < 0.001). ChatGPT acceptance explained 10.7% of the variance in AI literacy scores (R² = 0.107).
conclusionThe findings demonstrated a significant relationship between ChatGPT acceptance and AI literacy. Integrating generative AI tools into nursing education may enhance AI literacy and critical thinking; however, longitudinal and experimental studies are required to confirm these potential effects.
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.