Cited by 100Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovations in Medical Education

ChatGPT integration within nursing education and its implications for nursing students: a systematic review and text network analysis

Gunawan, Joko, Aungsuroch, Yupin, Montayre, Jed·2024·Nurse Education Today

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to explore prevalent topics related to integrating ChatGPT into nursing education, specifically focusing on its impact on nursing students.Design A systematic review and text network analysis were conducted.Data sources Full-text articles from reputable scientific databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, along with relevant articles identified through Google Scholar, were utilized, and the search period ranged from January 20th to January 23rd, 2024.Review methods The review centered on the main text of the articles, which were initially converted from PDFs to TXT files. Text cleaning and preprocessing were conducted using Python 3.11, followed by text analysis performed with InfraNodus.Results Of 145 articles, 46 full-text articles were included in the final analysis. Four key topical clusters were identified: Academic Writing, Healthcare Simulation, Data Modeling, and Personal Development. Sentiments regarding the integration of ChatGPT into nursing education and its impact on nursing students were primarily positive (48 %), with a notable percentage expressing negative views (31 %) and a smaller proportion indicating neutrality (21 %).Conclusion This study highlights the transformative potential of ChatGPT in nursing education, advocating for its responsible integration to empower nursing students with advanced skills and uphold ethical standards in artificial intelligence (AI) utilization. The identified four topics and the sentiments are crucial for guiding educators, researchers, and practitioners in nursing education to navigate the integration of AI tools effectively. Further research and exploration in these areas can contribute to the ongoing discourse on the intersection of technology and nursing education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106323

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gunawan, J., Aungsuroch, Y., & Montayre, J.
Affiliations
  • Chulalongkorn University (TH)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Corresponding author
  • Gunawan, Joko
  • Aungsuroch, Yupin
Venue
Nurse Education Today
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-10
Volume
141
Pages
106323
ISSN
0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401009910
Cited by
90
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 6
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education Today (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Chulalongkorn University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, nursing education, nursing students, artificial intelligence in education, academic writing, simulation-based medical education, data modeling, human development, student perceptions, AI ethics
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Education, Nursing, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Humans, Students, Nursing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review