Cited by 76Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Technology and Pedagogy

The role of artificial intelligence in shaping nursing education: A comprehensive systematic review

Ma, Jiatian, Wen, Jiamin, Qiu, Ying, Wang, Yuling, Xiao, Qiao, Liu, Tingting, Zhang, Dong, Zhao, Yangyang +2 more·2025·Nurse Education in Practice

Abstract

AIM: This systematic review assesses AI's application, effectiveness and impact on nursing education, while identifying research limitations. BACKGROUND: AI integration in nursing education is transforming traditional teaching and learning paradigms. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from the inception of the databases to November 1, 2024, focusing on "Artificial Intelligence" and "nursing education." Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the literature. The quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB-2) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) tools evaluation for observational studies and the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for quasi-experimental studies. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 1464 nursing students and professionals were included. The application scenarios of AI technology in nursing education are diverse and varied and it has shown significant potential in many areas of nursing education, but conflicting results have also been observed. Evaluation of literature quality showed that there were seven high-quality studies and eight medium-quality studies. Artificial intelligence was found to have a positive impact on students at three levels: learning attitude and psychological effects, learning effectiveness and comprehensive clinical nursing competencies. Key research gaps were identified, including the lack of longitudinal studies, uneven study populations and the lack of measurement instrument validity and objectivity. CONCLUSION: AI positively impacts nursing education but requires further research to address gaps and ensure long-term effectiveness and privacy protection. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42024562849.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104345

Cites

51 of 51 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

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, J., Wen, J., Qiu, Y., Wang, Y., Xiao, Q., Liu, T., Zhang, D., Zhao, Y., Lu, Z., & Sun, Z.
Affiliations
Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine (CN)
Corresponding author
Sun, Zhiling
Venue
Nurse Education in Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-03
Volume
84
Pages
104345
ISSN
1471-5953 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409012083
Cited by
73
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 23
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education in Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
artificial intelligence, nursing education, AI in teaching and learning, nursing students, learning effectiveness, learning attitude, research gaps, privacy preservation
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Education, Nursing, 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