ReviewJMIR AI2026
ChatGPT as an AI-Enabled Educational Resource in Nursing Practice: Scoping Review of Uses, Outcomes, and Implementation Challenges.
Review in JMIR AI, 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.
- Clinical nursing interns' perceptions of artificial intelligence-assisted tools in human-AI collaboration: a qualitative persona-based study.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-quality nursing services are essential for improving patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) applications such as ChatGPT offer potential solutions to enhance patient education and assist nurses in providing more accurate and personalized information. Despite its promising potential in nursing education, concerns regarding information accuracy, privacy, and ethical considerations must be addressed. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence on the use of ChatGPT (OpenAI) as an educational resource in nursing practice, focusing on its educational functions, reported outcomes, and implementation challenges. Methods: The literature search was conducted using 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest). Following the Population, Concept, and Context framework. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies published between 2019 and 2025, in English, and available in full text. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guideline was used to guide the screening and selection process. Results: We included 20 articles and synthesized four main findings: (1) AI in patient education and simplification of medical information, (2) AI in clinical decision-making and patient monitoring, (3) AI in nursing education, and (4) challenges and prospects of AI in nursing. Across studies, commonly reported limitations involved response accuracy inconsistencies, ethical concerns, and the absence of standardized implementation guidelines. Conclusions: ChatGPT shows promise as an adjunct educational resource in nursing practice, particularly for information accessibility and learner engagement. Nevertheless, its use requires professional oversight, ethical safeguards, and further implementation-focused research.
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.