Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41968950›Full record

ArticleNursing & health sciences2026

Perceptions of Intensive Care Nurses Toward Artificial Intelligence Technologies: A Qualitative Study.

Dilek Yildirim, Cennet Çiriş Yildiz, Emine Ergin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing & health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dilek YildirimFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, İstanbul Aydin University, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-0007
Cennet Çiriş YildizFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, İstanbul Aydin University, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1351-5439
Emine ErginHamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Midwifery, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intensive care nurses play a pivotal role in patient care; however, their perceptions and concerns regarding artificial intelligence (AI) in intensive care units remain limited. This study aimed to explore ICU nurses' views on AI to support effective integration strategies. A qualitative descriptive design with interpretive elements was conducted between September and December 2025 in multiple hospitals in Istanbul, Turkey. Using purposive snowball sampling, 22 ICU nurses participated in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. Data were analyzed inductively using interpretive description. Six themes were identified: knowledge and awareness of AI, experiences with AI, impact on nursing care, role in clinical decision-making, ethical and safety risks, and educational needs and future expectations. Findings revealed that nurses had limited and fragmented knowledge of AI, with mostly indirect exposure. While AI was perceived as having the potential to improve care quality and support clinical decisions, concerns were raised regarding loss of autonomy, data security, device errors, and accountability. Participants also emphasized the irreplaceable role of human presence in care and highlighted a clear need for structured education and institutional support.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelCritical Care NursingNursesPerceptionAdultFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchTurkeyartificial intelligenceclinical decision‐makinghealthcare innovationintensive care unitnursingtechnology integration

Identifiers

PMID41968950
PMCPMC13071536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.