ArticleNursing ethics2026
Generative AI Ethics Toolkit for Clinical Prioritization in Nursing Education.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in nursing education presents urgent ethical challenges, particularly as students employ these tools in high-stakes clinical prioritization tasks. Although general AI literacy initiatives exist, nursing-specific resources for addressing risks of bias, inequity, and misinformation in GenAI-mediated decision making remain limited. This study adapts an interdisciplinary, open-access AI ethics learning toolkit to develop a conceptual, nursing-focused mini-toolkit. The adaptation integrates three complementary ethical frameworks: Rest's Four-Component Model at the learner level (moral sensitivity, judgment, motivation, and character), cyberethics principles at the professional level (autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, and explicability), and Chan's ecological model at the institutional level (pedagogy, governance, and operations). Collectively, these frameworks scaffold ethical reasoning across individual, professional, and systemic domains. The resulting mini-toolkit includes case vignettes that simulate GenAI-supported prioritization scenarios, reflection prompts to cultivate bias recognition and accountability, and rubric criteria to guide faculty in assessing ethical reasoning and oversight. Rather than prescribing fixed answers, the toolkit creates structured opportunities for dialogue, inquiry, and professional judgment. By embedding ethical reasoning into prioritization pedagogy, the toolkit positions faculty and students as critical evaluators rather than passive users of GenAI, reinforcing nursing's commitment to equity, justice, and patient-centered care. Situated within a broader global movement toward responsible and human-centered AI integration, this study contributes to nursing ethics by translating abstract principles into pedagogically actionable tools and modeling a methodology for adapting interdisciplinary frameworks into nursing-specific applications. Future work should pilot and evaluate the toolkit in authentic educational contexts, examining its impact on ethical reasoning, bias recognition, and collaborative decision making.
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.