ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Artificial intelligence-related perceptions and E-health literacy among nursing students in Palestine: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and e-health literacy are increasingly relevant to nursing education; however, the relationship between nursing students' perceptions and acceptance of AI and their perceived ability to locate, evaluate, and apply online health information remains insufficiently examined in Palestine. This cross-sectional study examined e-health literacy, AI-related technology-acceptance perceptions, Internet-use factors associated with these constructs, and whether overall AI-related perceptions were independently associated with e-health literacy among 113 third- and fourth-year nursing students. Participants completed the 8-item eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) and a 28-item adapted technology-acceptance questionnaire covering seven AI-related perception domains, with negatively worded items reverse scored where required. Descriptive statistics, regrouped one-way analyses of variance, Pearson correlations with Holm adjustment for multiple testing, and multiple linear regression were performed. The mean eHEALS score was 3.53 (SD 0.59), and the overall AI-related perceptions score was 3.35 (SD 0.34). Overall AI-related perceptions were positively correlated with eHEALS (r = 0.387, Holm-adjusted p < .001). Facilitating conditions showed the largest domain-level correlation with eHEALS (r = 0.450, Holm-adjusted p < .001), whereas anxiety was not significantly associated with eHEALS. After adjustment for year of study, perceived Internet skills, and perceived importance of the Internet, overall AI-related perceptions remained independently associated with eHEALS (B = 0.643, 95% CI 0.289-0.998, p < .001; model R2 = 0.177). Among the regrouped Internet-use comparisons, only perceived usefulness of the Internet remained significant after Holm correction. Overall, AI-related perceptions and perceived e-health literacy were positively associated in this sample, although the cross-sectional design precludes conclusions regarding directionality or causality. Further multi-site, longitudinal, and intervention studies are warranted, and domain-level findings should be interpreted cautiously because several adapted subscales demonstrated low internal consistency.
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.