Artificial Intelligence Among Palestinian Nursing Students: Attitude and Awareness
Abstract
This cross-sectional study aimed to assess nursing students' awareness and attitudes regarding artificial intelligence (AI) applications at Nablus University for Vocational and Technical Education. The data were collected using a structured, self-administered Google Form questionnaire. Most students (96.7%) reported familiarity with AI and indicated they use it daily for academic tasks such as assignments, presentations, and exam preparation. The most commonly used application was ChatGPT (92.5%) followed by Gemini (41.6%). Conversely, 61.1% of students expressed a favourable attitude towards AI. Nonetheless, 72.4% worried about its potential to contribute to academic dishonesty, hinder intellectual growth and development (72.0%), and threaten future job opportunities (72.9%). Significant associations were found between age and marital status regarding positive attitudes, while awareness was linked solely to the academic year. Despite the high usage of AI, formal instruction is lacking, indicating a mismatch between the needs of students and the current curricula. Integrating AI education into nursing curricula is essential to ensure that future nurses can utilize AI technologies in an ethical, informed, and effective manner.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the absence of regulation or with excess use of AI, there are threats of losing the capacity to think and develop professionally.
“However, in case of the absence of regulation or excess use of AI, there are threats of losing the capacity to think, and develop professionally [22,23].”
From HOW AI TOOLS (LIKE CHATGPT/GEMINI) AFFECT CRITICAL THINKING IN NURSING STUDENTS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Strategic and ethical use of AI would render critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and reflective capacity more effective.
“Strategic and ethical use of AI would render critical thinking and clinical reasoning and reflective capacity more effective.”
From HOW AI TOOLS (LIKE CHATGPT/GEMINI) AFFECT CRITICAL THINKING IN NURSING STUDENTS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Cites
Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · Cited by 2,301 · cited 1× · see citing works
“But students' easy access to them raises questions about how they can affect the quality of outcomes in the higher education sector, including factors like accuracy, learning effectiveness, personal growth, and job opportunities [5].”
Lee, D., & Yoon, S. N. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18010271 · Cited by 1,017 · see citing works
Kwak, Y., Ahn, J.-W., & Seo, Y. H. (2022) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-022-01048-0 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Andersson, H., Svensson, A., Frank, C., Rantala, A., Holmberg, M., & Bremer, A. (2022) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-022-00766-z · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Integration of artificial intelligence into nursing practice
Abuzaid, M. M., Elshami, W., & Fadden, S. M. (2022) · Health and Technology · doi:10.1007/s12553-022-00697-0 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Labrague, L. J., Aguilar-Rosales, R., Yboa, B. C., & Sabio, J. B. (2023) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105945 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Omari, O. A., Alshammari, M., Jabri, W. A., Yahyaei, A. A., Aljohani, K. A., Sanad, H. M., Al‐Jubouri, M. B., Bashayreh, I., Fawaz, M. A., ALBashtawy, M., et al. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-06452-5 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence national strategy in a developing country
Demaidi, M. N. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01779-x · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in the Organization of Nursing Care: A Scoping Review
Silva, J. M. A. V., Martins, M. M., Trindade, L. D. L., Faria, A. D. C. A., Pereira, S. C. D. A., Züge, S. S., & Ribeiro, O. M. P. L. (2024) · Nursing Reports · doi:10.3390/nursrep14040202 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Impact of ChatGPT usage on nursing students education: A cross-sectional study
García, A., Bermejo‐Martínez, D., Alonso, A. I. L., Trevissón‐Redondo, B., Martín‐Vázquez, C., & Pérez‐González, S. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41559 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Nursing students' attitudes and literacy toward artificial intelligence: a cross-sectional study
Sümengen, A. A., Subaşı, D. Ö., & Çakır, G. N. (2024) · Teaching and learning in nursing · doi:10.1016/j.teln.2024.10.022 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Migdadi, M. K., Oweidat, I. A., Alosta, M. R., Al‐Mugheed, K., Alabdullah, A. A. S., & Abdelaliem, S. M. F. (2024) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076241301958 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Felicilda‐Reynaldo, R. F. D., Cruz, J. P., Alshammari, F., Obaid, K. B., Rady, H. E. A. E. A., Qtait, M., Alquwez, N., & Colet, P. C. (2017) · Nursing Forum · doi:10.1111/nuf.12240 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Salama, N., Bsharat, R., Alwawi, A., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-02913-4 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Nursing Students’ Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence: Palestinian Perspectives
Salameh, B. S., Qaddumi, J. A. S., Hammad, B. M., Eqtit, F., Ayed, A., Fashafsheh, I., ALBashtawy, M., Reshia, F. A. A., & Lukić, I. K. (2025) · SAGE Open Nursing · doi:10.1177/23779608251343297 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Knowledge and Attitude of Nursing Students Regarding Artificial Intelligence
Khaled, A., & Elborai, A. S. A. A. (2024) · Egyptian Journal of Health Care · doi:10.21608/ejhc.2024.377035 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Sandanasamy, S., McFarlane, P., Okamoto, Y., & Couper, A. L. (2025) · Journal of Nursing Reports in Clinical Practice · doi:10.32598/jnrcp.2408.1134 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Abdolahi Shahvali, E., Arizavi, Z., Hematipour, َ., & Jahangirimehr, A. (2024) · doi:10.32592/jsmj.23.2.134 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
HOW AI TOOLS (LIKE CHATGPT/GEMINI) AFFECT CRITICAL THINKING IN NURSING STUDENTS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Din, A. L. (2026) · Journal of Medical & Health Sciences Review · doi:10.65035/650ytk03 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aqqad, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Nablus University for Vocational and Technical Education (PS)
- Corresponding author
- Aqqad, Sana Al
- Venue
- 2025 International Conference on Smart Learning Courses (SCME)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2025-07-09
- Pages
- 57-62
- OpenAlex
- W7084096678
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Smart Learning Courses (SCME) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, nursing students, attitudes toward AI, AI awareness, ChatGPT, academic dishonesty
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
