Cited by 2Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An artificial intelligence use framework for nursing education: Bridging policy and pedagogical implementation

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming higher education and healthcare, yet nursing faculty lack practical guidance for determining appropriate AI use in specific academic tasks. Institutional AI policies establish boundaries but rarely address learning outcomes, task purposes, or nursing-specific responsibilities such as patient privacy, clinical judgment development, and professional accountability.Purpose To present the AI Use Framework for Nursing Education, a six-category pedagogical framework that operationalizes responsible AI integration at the task level.Methods A 10-member taskforce adapted the Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale through targeted review of existing frameworks, iterative refinement guided by four principles (transparency over detection, learning outcome alignment, nursing-specific contextualization, and developmental scaffolding), and consultation with faculty across pre-licensure through doctoral programs.Results The framework provides six categories: (a) No AI, (b) AI-Assisted Editing and Formatting, (c) AI-Assisted Planning and Ideation, (d) AI-Assisted Content Creation with limited and extensive subcategories, (e) AI System Evaluation and Research, and (f) AI Application Design and Development. Three distinguishing features include embedded protected health information/personally identifiable information safeguards, differentiated process evidence recommendations enabling faculty to tailor documentation requirements to learning outcomes and task complexity, and Bloom's-aligned separation of AI evaluation from AI creation activities.Conclusion The framework bridges institutional policy and pedagogical practice through healthcare-specific adaptations. Implementation requires comprehensive infrastructure including AI literacy education, institutional guidelines, and faculty support. This structured, task-level guidance positions nursing education to lead intentional AI integration while preparing students for AI-enabled practice environments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102856

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Wang, 2024, Generative AI in higher education: Seeing ChatGPT through universities’ policies, resources, and guidelines, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7
  2. Weber-Wulff, 2023, Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text, International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19

Metadata

Authors
Moore, J., Frangieh, J., Capello, A., Montejo, L., Lukkahatai, N., Aryal, S., Zhang, J., & Mudd, S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Moore, Jeanne
Venue
Nursing Outlook
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-09
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
102856
ISSN
0029-6554 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7171797133
Cited by
2
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nursing Outlook (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in nursing education, responsible AI adoption, institutional AI policies, pedagogical implementation, AI-assisted content creation, AI literacy
MeSH terms
Academia, Artificial Intelligence, Curriculum, Education, Nursing, Faculty, Nursing, Humans, Nursing Education Research, Organizational Policy

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