ArticleDigital health
Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers toward artificial intelligence integration among nursing and health sciences students: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the perceived Artificial Intelligence Literacy Questionnaire-6 (PAILQ-6) in Arabic-speaking pharmacists: A cross-sectional methodological study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
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
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly transforming healthcare delivery and health professions education, creating a need for future healthcare professionals to develop adequate knowledge, practical skills, and ethical awareness. However, many students remain exposed to AI tools without receiving structured academic preparation. This study aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers toward AI among nursing and health sciences students. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 242 undergraduate students at a public university in Palestine between January and February 2025. Data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire adapted from previous literature and refined through expert review and pilot testing. The survey assessed sociodemographic characteristics, AI-related knowledge and exposure, attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, while Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests examined subgroup differences. Results: Participants had a mean age of 20.4 ± 2.28 years, and 77.3% were female. Most students reported using AI tools (83.1%), whereas only 31.0% had received formal AI training. Overall knowledge/exposure scores were moderate (2.78 ± 1.12), attitudes were generally positive (3.64 ± 0.61), and practice levels were moderate (3.18 ± 0.72). No significant differences in knowledge or practice scores were observed across demographic variables (p > .05). Students with formal AI training demonstrated significantly higher attitude scores (p = .019). The most frequently reported barriers were ethical and privacy concerns (44.2%), limited curriculum integration (42.6%), and lack of knowledge or expertise (38.4%). Conclusions: Students demonstrated substantial exposure to AI technologies but limited structured preparedness for their effective and ethical use. Positive attitudes toward AI suggest readiness for educational adoption; however, moderate knowledge and practice levels indicate the need for formal curriculum integration, faculty development, and competency-based training. Addressing ethical concerns and institutional barriers is essential to support responsible AI implementation in nursing and health sciences education.
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.