ArticleBMC nursing2026
The cognitive and ethical crossroads: a qualitative study of academic integrity, emotional landscapes, and generative AI integration in nursing education.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Scale on Community Care Perceptions (SCOPE) among nurses: a methodological study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Family-school autonomy support for children's responsible use of generative artificial intelligence: a self-determination theory synthesis and developmental research agenda.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
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
aimTo explore undergraduate nursing students’ experiences and subjective perceptions regarding the integration of AI tools into their academic and professional development.
backgroundThe rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into education presents a paradigm shift for nursing. A significant gap exists in understanding the lived experiences of nursing students navigating AI integration in their academic journey.
methodsA qualitative descriptive design using reflexive thematic analysis was employed.
designA purposive sample of 27 nursing students (levels 4–8) with prior AI experience participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsSeven major themes emerged: (1) AI as an Adaptive Learning Companion; (2) Tension Between Efficiency and Authentic Learning, manifesting as cognitive offloading and academic integrity ambiguities; (3) Reconceptualizing Professional Nursing Identity, challenging traditional epistemology; (4) Critical Information Literacy and Epistemic Vigilance; (5) Social Dynamics and Peer Learning Cultures; (6) Emotional Landscape of AI Integration, encompassing frustration, empowerment, and anxiety; and (7) Developmental Trajectories showing progressive sophistication and curricular gaps. A post-hoc theoretical integration derived from thematic analysis positioned the efficiency-authenticity tension as the central organizing construct.
conclusionsAI integration in nursing education is a complex phenomenon. Students demonstrated critical thinking while navigating institutional ambiguity and ethical uncertainty. Findings underscore the urgent need for proactive critical AI literacy integration into nursing curricula, fostering environments to ethically harness AI to augment the essential humanistic core of nursing practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study underscores that while AI serves as a powerful adaptive learning companion, its integration into nursing practice requires cultivating critical AI literacy and ethical vigilance to ensure technology augments, rather than diminishes, clinical judgment and the humanistic care essential for patient safety. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.