SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Nurse educators' experiences and perceptions using generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education has increased both enthusiasm and concern. While students' use of GenAI has been widely discussed, empirical research focusing on nurse educators' own experiences and perceptions remains limited. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on nurse educators' experiences of using generative artificial intelligence in teaching.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ERIC. Peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English were included. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and conducted quality appraisal using established tools. Due to methodological heterogeneity, results were synthesized thematically.
resultsThirteen studies were included, representing a total of 3082 participants. Two overarching themes were identified: (1) Nurse educators' opportunities and challenges using Generative AI in teaching, and (2) Nurse educators' competence and ways of using Generative AI. Educators described Generative AI as a potentially valuable resource for teaching efficiency and organizational and pedagogical inspiration. They expressed concerns relating to their loss of professional roles, academic integrity, and erosion of critical thinking related to students. Experience with Generative AI, institutional position, organizational policy and support influenced educators' attitudes, confidence, and use. DISCUSSION: The findings reveal a tension between optimism about Generative AI's pedagogical potential and apprehension about its ethical, educational, and professional implications. Educators' calls for clearer policies, competency development, and institutional support highlight the need for systematic capacity-building.
conclusionGenerative AI's value depends on educators' skills, supportive policies, and intentional use, making structured training and governance essential for integration in nurse 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.