Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42347840›Full record

SynthesisJMIR nursing2026

Nurses' Experiences Using AI in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review.

Ashley J S Scott, Qimeng Zhao, Jo-Fan Pan, Benjamin C Brown, Dawn Dowding

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Ashley J S ScottDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, England, M13 9PT, United Kingdom, +44 161 306 9966.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3928-9086
Qimeng ZhaoDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, England, M13 9PT, United Kingdom, +44 161 306 9966.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4867-8151
Jo-Fan PanDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, England, M13 9PT, United Kingdom, +44 161 306 9966.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9364-597X
Benjamin C BrownDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester, England, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9975-4782
Dawn DowdingDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, England, M13 9PT, United Kingdom, +44 161 306 9966.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5672-8605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used in clinical settings, yet most syntheses focus on nurses' attitudes or readiness rather than experiences after direct use in practice. Objective: This study aimed to synthesize registered nurses' experiences of using AI in clinical practice and to identify perceived benefits, barriers, and implementation implications. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of empirical studies reporting nurses' experiences of AI use in clinical settings. Searches were performed in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed (last search: September 13, 2023). Moreover, 2 reviewers (AJSS and QZ) independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and appraised included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used thematic synthesis with a primarily deductive framework based on the Technology Acceptance Model 2, with the addition of facilitating conditions from the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Results: In total, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. Perceived usefulness and facilitating conditions were most frequently reported; nurses described AI as supporting decision-making, workflow efficiency, and confidence when implementation included adequate training, interoperability, and technical infrastructure. Ease of use was closely tied to interface design and training. Job relevance and output quality were rated more positively when nurses described AI as aligning with nursing tasks and as producing interpretable, reliable outputs. Common barriers included usability issues, limited integration into workflows and electronic systems, privacy and trust concerns, and inconsistent or poorly contextualized outputs. Across studies, nurses often described adoption as conditional on organizational readiness and meaningful involvement of nurses in design and implementation. Conclusions: Nurses' accounts suggest that AI may augment clinical work, but the perceived benefits reported in the included literature were contingent on workflow alignment, usable interfaces, training, and supportive infrastructure. These findings suggest potential value in involving nurses in the co-design and iterative refinement of AI tools, grounded in the consistent evidence that facilitating conditions, such as training, interoperability, and organizational readiness, are the primary determinants of whether AI is experienced positively. Prospective evaluation using nursing-relevant outcomes, such as usability, workflow integration, and trust, is needed to move beyond post hoc experiential accounts and establish what implementation conditions reliably produce benefit.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelNursesAttitude to ComputersHumansartificial intelligenceclinical practicedecision support systemsimplementationnursingPRISMAsystematic reviewtechnology acceptance modeluser experience

Identifiers

PMID42347840
PMCPMC13296498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.