The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 24 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Worldwide, healthcare systems aim to achieve the best possible quality of care at an affordable cost while ensuring broad access for all populations. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare holds promise to address these challenges through the integration of real-world data-driven insights into patient care processes. This study aims to assess nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward AI-integrated tools used in clinical practice. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional design captured nurses’ responses at three governmental hospitals in Saudi Arabia by using an online questionnaire administered over 4 months. The study involved 220 registered nurses with a minimum of one year of clinical experience, selected through a convenience sampling method. The online survey consisted of three sections: demographic information, an assessment of nurses’ AI knowledge, and the general attitudes toward the AI scale. Results: Nurses displayed “moderate” levels of awareness toward AI technology, with 70.9% having basic information about AI and only 58.2% (128 nurses) were considered “aware” of AI as they dealt with one of its healthcare applications. Nurses expressed openness to AI integration ( M = 3.51) on one side, but also had some concerns about AI. Nurses expressed conservative attitudes toward AI, with significant differences observed based on gender (χ² = 4.67, p < 0.05). Female nurses exhibited a higher proportion of negative attitudes compared to male nurses. Significant differences were also found based on age (χ² = 9.31, p < 0.05), with younger nurses demonstrating more positive attitudes toward AI compared to their older counterparts. Educational background yields significant differences (χ² = 6.70, p < 0.05), with nurses holding undergraduate degrees exhibiting the highest positive attitudes. However, years of nursing experience did not reveal significant variations in attitudes. Conclusion: Healthcare and nursing administrators need to work on increasing the nurses’ awareness of AI applications and emphasize the importance of integrating such technology into the systems in use. Moreover, addressing nurses’ concerns about AI's control and discomfort is crucial, especially considering generational differences, with younger nurses often having more positive attitudes toward technology. Change management strategies may help overcome any hindrances.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This cross-sectional survey of 220 Saudi registered nurses found moderate AI awareness and generally conservative attitudes toward AI in clinical practice. Demographic factors—gender, age, and education—were significantly associated with attitudes, while years of nursing experience were not.
Key findings
- Awareness was moderate: 70.9% reported basic information about AI, 67.3% had heard of AI in medicine, and 58.2% (128 nurses) reported encountering/using AI means in the medical field.
- Nurses showed some openness to AI, including interest in using AI in daily life (M = 3.51) and willingness to use AI in their job (M = 3.50), but also concerns about AI control (M = 3.15), personal consequences (M = 3.10), errors (M = 3.04), discomfort about future uses (M = 3.02), and danger (M = 2.93).
- Significant attitude differences were found by gender (χ² = 4.67, p < 0.05), with more female nurses expressing negative attitudes (41.4%) than male nurses (10.5%); by age (χ² = 9.31, p < 0.05), with 20–29-year-olds most positive (20.5%) and 50–59-year-olds least positive (2.7%); and by education (χ² = 6.70, p < 0.05), with undergraduate-degree nurses most positive (32.3%), followed by postgraduate (17.4%) and diploma nurses (5%).
- Years of nursing experience showed no significant variation in attitudes (χ² = 2.67, p = 0.61).
Methods
- Descriptive cross-sectional online survey conducted in three governmental hospitals in the Jouf region, northern Saudi Arabia, over four months (April–September 2023).
- Convenience sample of 220 registered nurses with at least one year of clinical experience; about 350 nurses were invited, yielding a 62.9% response rate.
- Instrument included demographics, a 7-item “Yes/No” Nurses’ AI knowledge questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha 0.795), and the 20-item General Attitudes toward AI Scale (GAAIS; 5-point Likert; positive subscale alpha 0.88, negative subscale alpha 0.82). Analysis used descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests.
Limitations
- The paper states that generalization is limited because the study was restricted to nursing professionals in a specific setting and used a cross-sectional design; it recommends longitudinal and qualitative studies including nurses and other healthcare workers.
- Evident from the text: convenience sampling, self-report online survey, and recruitment from only three governmental hospitals in one northern Saudi region limit generalizability.
- Evident from the text: the sample was predominantly female (73.6%), and AI awareness was assessed largely through “Yes/No” items, which may not capture depth of knowledge.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 Own result · 16 Not checked yet · 4 Own method · 2 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nurses displayed “moderate” levels of awareness toward AI technology, with 70.9% having basic information about AI and only 58.2% (128 nurses) were considered “aware” of AI as they dealt with one of its healthcare applications.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nurses expressed openness to AI integration (M = 3.51) on one side, but also had some concerns about AI.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, 40.0% of nurses reported encountering AI in nursing diagnosis through electronic care systems, and 45.5% reported that they had used AI to calculate drug doses.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Nurses’ awareness toward AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the mean score for the item “I would like to use AI in my job” was 3.50 (SD = 0.99)”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Female nurses exhibited a higher proportion of negative attitudes compared to male nurses.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Just above half (58.2%) of the participating nurses demonstrated practical knowledge of AI-integrated technology.4,5,13”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nurses expressed openness to AI integration (M = 3.51) on one side, but also had some concerns about AI.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, 40.0% of nurses reported encountering AI in nursing diagnosis through electronic care systems, and 45.5% reported that they had used AI to calculate drug doses.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Nurses’ awareness toward AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of educational background, 39.1% of nurses reported that the basics of AI were covered in their undergraduate education, while the majority (60.9%) stated otherwise.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Nurses’ awareness toward AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concerning AI-integrated applications, 60.0% of nurses reported knowledge about it, while 40.0% indicated a lack of knowledge.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Nurses’ awareness toward AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“nurses with undergraduate degrees demonstrated the highest positive attitude toward AI (32.3%), followed by postgraduate degree holders (17.4%), and those with diplomas (5%). Significant differences were observed among educational levels (χ² = 6.70, p < 0.05).”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Differences in nurses’ attitudes toward AI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“nurses aged 20–29 years demonstrated the highest positive attitude toward AI (20.5%), whereas those aged 50–59 years exhibited the lowest (2.7%). Statistically significant differences were found across age categories (χ² = 9.31, p < 0.05).”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Differences in nurses’ attitudes toward AI
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nurses expressed conservative attitudes toward AI, with significant differences observed based on gender (χ² = 4.67, p < 0.05).”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a higher proportion of female nurses (41.4%) expressed negative attitudes toward AI compared to male nurses (10.5%), with statistically significant differences (χ² = 4.67, p < 0.05).”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Differences in nurses’ attitudes toward AI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, the GAAIS exhibited good convergent and divergent validity with a related scale.23,24”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Instrument
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Schepman A Rodway P. Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Comput Hum Behav Rep 2020; 1: 100014. 34235291 PMC7231759 source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Schepman A Rodway P. The general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale (GAAIS): confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. Int J Hum Comput 2023; 39: 2724– 2741. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The GAAIS demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha values of 0.88 for the Positive GAAIS (12 items) and 0.82 for the Negative GAAIS (8 items), as reported by Schepman and Rodway. 24”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Instrument
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Schepman A Rodway P. The general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale (GAAIS): confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. Int J Hum Comput 2023; 39: 2724– 2741. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI could help solve some of the problems facing the nursing profession, such as job dissatisfaction and unintended deficiencies in patient care (such as errors in the administration of medication and identification of at-risk clients).15,17”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Robert N. How artificial intelligence is changing nursing. Nurs Manage 2019; 50: 30– 39. PMC7597764 31425440 source
- Not checked yetcites [17] Alluhidan M Tashkandi N Alblowi F, et al. Challenges and policy opportunities in nursing in Saudi Arabia. Hum Resour Health 2020; 18: 1– 10. 33276794 PMC7716289 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Missing data were handled by excluding cases with incomplete responses from the analysis.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Female nurses and those older than 50 years demonstrated more conservative attitudes compared to their counterparts, with χ2 values of 4.67, p < 0.05, and 9.31, p < 0.05, respectively.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study obtained approval from the Bioethics Institutional Review Board at Jouf University (Approval no. 3-06-44, 7 February 2023), adhering to the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration. 25”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Ethical consideration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a total of 220 nurses participated in the study, providing complete responses to the questionnaire, exceeding the anticipated recruitment target.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Sampling and setting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conservative attitudes toward AI may stem from various concerns, including fears about job displacement, doubts about AI's reliability and accuracy, and ethical worries about patient privacy and the depersonalization of care.7,26”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] O’Connor S Yan Y Thilo FJ, et al. Artificial intelligence in nursing and midwifery: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs 2023; 32: 2951– 2968. 35908207 source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Alhashmi S Salloum SA Mhamdi C. Implementing artificial intelligence in the United Arab Emirates healthcare sector: an extended technology acceptance model. Int J Inf Technol Lang Stud 2019; 3: 27– 42.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nurses who have positive views and attitudes toward AI are more likely to feel comfortable using AI applications and they view AI and other technology applications as useful and easy to use.28,29”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Park J Woo SE. Who likes artificial intelligence? Personality predictors of attitudes toward artificial intelligence. J Psychol 2022; 156: 68– 94. 35015615 source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Bozak MG. Using Lewin’s force field analysis in implementing a nursing information system. Comput Inform Nurs 2003; 21: 80– 85. 12802948 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These conservative attitudes are particularly pronounced among female and older nurses, suggesting that demographic factors play a crucial role in shaping perceptions of technological advancements.7,26,30”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] O’Connor S Yan Y Thilo FJ, et al. Artificial intelligence in nursing and midwifery: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs 2023; 32: 2951– 2968. 35908207 source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Alhashmi S Salloum SA Mhamdi C. Implementing artificial intelligence in the United Arab Emirates healthcare sector: an extended technology acceptance model. Int J Inf Technol Lang Stud 2019; 3: 27– 42.
- Not checked yetcites [30] Hwang G-J Tang K-Y Tu Y-F. How artificial intelligence (AI) supports nursing education: profiling the roles, applications, and trends of AI in nursing education research (1993–2020). Inter Learn Environ 2024; 1: 373– 392. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This can be explained by the thoughts of nurses about the changes that can be introduced to their role in practice settings as AI-integrated technology may affect the decision-making process and lead nurses and other healthcare practitioners in that. 12”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Clancy TR. Artificial intelligence and nursing: the future is now. J Nurs Adm 2020; 50: 125– 127. 32068622 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The changing role of nurses may introduce anxiety toward AI, 27 which directly affects the attitudes toward AI and the resulting potential difficulties in future adoption and usage of its applications in practice in addition to the concern of invaded privacy that may result from some AI-integrated technology applications. 27”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Esmaeilzadeh P. Use of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers’ perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20: 1– 19. 32698869 PMC7376886 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Caution should be practiced in the generalization of the current study results as it is limited to nursing professionals in a specific setting in addition to its cross-sectional nature.”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Limitations and recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of AI is not yet well understood among Saudi Arabian nurses, and little is known about their readiness, confidence, attitudes, and barriers to embracing AI in the clinical setting.
“The use of AI is not yet well understood among Saudi Arabian nurses, as little is known about their readiness, confidence, attitudes, and barriers to embracing AI in the clinical setting.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nursing professionals may lack the knowledge, skills, and confidence to see the utilization of AI and digital health approaches, which explains why these resources aren’t utilized, or viewed as utilized, widely.
“Nursing professionals may lack the knowledge, skills, and confidence to see the utilization of AI and digital health approaches, which explains why these resources aren’t utilized, or viewed as utilized, widely.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nurses are the end users of AI technology and interact directly with patients.
“Because nurses are the end users of the technology and interact directly with patients, it is critical to assess their current understanding of AI to determine future training needs. 21”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI and other technology applications are becoming part of nurses' daily work.
“Nurses need to be introduced to the imminent transformation of nursing practice as AI and other technology applications are becoming part of their daily work for nurses.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nurses' roles and functions are being assisted by the different applications of technology including AI.
“Nurses’ roles and functions are being assisted by the different applications of technology including AI.”
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 citing paper
“One descriptive study assessing nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward AI in clinical practice met four criteria due to a limited sample drawn from three hospitals, despite the use of validated tools and an adequate response rate (40).”
From Artificial intelligence in nursing: an integrative review of clinical and operational impacts (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Sampling and setting
“The inclusion criteria for participants involved registered nurses in Saudi Arabia with at least one year of clinical experience”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Sample characteristics
“| Years of nursing experience | <1 year | 28 | 12.7 |”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Differences in nurses’ attitudes toward AI
“| Gender | Male | 23 | 10.5 | 35 | 15.9 | χ² = 4.67*p = 0.03 | | Gender | Female | 91 | 41.4 | 71 | 32.2 | χ² = 4.67*p = 0.03 |”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Differences in nurses’ attitudes toward AI
“| Age | 20–29 years | 15 | 7 | 45 | 20.5 | χ² = 9.31*p = 0.02 | | Age | 30–39 years | 55 | 25 | 65 | 29.5 | χ² = 9.31*p = 0.02 | | Age | 40–49 years | 12 | 5.5 | 14 | 6.3 | χ² = 9.31*p = 0.02 | | Age | 50–59 years | 8 | 3.5 | 6 | 2.7 | χ² = 9.31*p = 0.02 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Sample characteristics
“over half of the participants”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Sample characteristics
“(45%) had a decade or more of experience”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Data collection
“The data was collected over four months”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Methods > Data collection
“(April to September 2023)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Marital status | Single | 84 | 37.3 |”
§ Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Implications for nursing practice > Results > Sample characteristics
Reported 37.3 · recomputed 38.181818
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Khalifa, M., Albadawy, M., & Iqbal, U. (2024) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update · doi:10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100142 · Cited by 139 · cited 1×
“11 The practice of nursing was signi fi cantly affected in the last decade by the introduction of AI.”
BackgroundRetractedThe potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare
Davenport, T., & Kalakota, R. (2019) · Future Healthcare Journal · doi:10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94 · Cited by 3,800
Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice
Alowais, S. A., Alghamdi, S. S., Alsuhebany, N., Alqahtani, T., Alshaya, A. I., Almohareb, S. N., Aldairem, A., Alrashed, M., Bin Saleh, K., Badreldin, H. A., et al. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z · Cited by 3,146
Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2 · Cited by 3,136
Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine
Bajwa, J., Munir, U., Nori, A., & Williams, B. (2021) · Future Healthcare Journal · doi:10.7861/fhj.2021-0095 · Cited by 1,856 · cited 1×
“14 Nurses ’ experiences with AI in terms of competence, understanding, reliability, and con fi dence in its potential as an alternative to human interventions in healthcare vary.”
BackgroundInitial validation of the general attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale
Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014 · Cited by 785 · cited 2×
“23 It is a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).”
BackgroundUse of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers’ perspectives
Esmaeilzadeh, P. (2020) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01191-1 · Cited by 507 · cited 9×
“12 The changing role of nurses may introduce anxiety toward AI, 27 which directly affects the attitudes toward AI and the resulting potential dif fi culties in future adoption and usage of its applications in practice in addition to the concern of invaded privacy that may result from some AI-integrated technology appli…”
BackgroundInfluentialSchepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2023) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400 · Cited by 503 · cited 2×
“24 Additionally, the GAAIS exhibited good convergent and divergent validity with a related scale.”
BackgroundMedical 4.0 technologies for healthcare: Features, capabilities, and applications
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Pratap Singh, R., & Suman, R. (2022) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2022.04.001 · Cited by 468 · cited 2×
“12,15,18 To integrate AI effectively into nursing education, nursing educators must assess the training needs speci fi c to this endeavor.”
BackgroundRonquillo, C. E., Peltonen, L., Pruinelli, L., Chu, C. H., Bakken, S., Beduschi, A., Cato, K., Hardiker, N., Junger, A., Michalowski, M., et al. (2021) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.14855 · Cited by 453 · cited 2×
“4,5,13 This highlights the importance of integrating AI-related terminology and applications into the nursing educational programs and the continuous education efforts for practicing nurses; which may extend to other healthcare workers as well.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- WHO, 2016, Working for health and growth: Investing in the health workforce
- Nagle LM, 2020, Qual Adv-Avancées en formation infirmière, 6, 4
- Alhashmi S, 2019, Int J Inf Technol Lang Stud, 3, 27
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–114 of 114
Sarıtaş, E., & Öztürk, P. Ç. (2026) · Sakarya Üniversitesi Holistik Sağlık Dergisi · doi:10.54803/sauhsd.1924219
A Foundation Model Adaptation Framework for Domain-Specific Clinical Analytics Integration
Okafor, C., & Bello, A. (2026) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare Systems · doi:10.68159/g399381482
Hassan, J., Al-Kharusi, H., Al-Farsi, H., Al-Kharusi, R., Al-Tamtami, Z., Al-Tubi, I., Al-Ruqieshi, A., Al-Balushi, S., & Azri, Z. A. (2026) · Nursing Forum · doi:10.1155/nuf/4700220
Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Care: Strategies for Addressing Implementation Challenges
Alrazeeni, D. M., Alharrasi, M., Rony, M. K. K., Biswas, R. K., Dhola, F.-T.-J., Aktery, A., & Akter, F. (2026) · International Nursing Review · doi:10.1111/inr.70241
Suzan, Ö. K., Gül, U., Koyuncu, O., & Akdeniz, C. (2026) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1155/jonm/1528189
Zou, Y., Su, H., Long, Q., & Xie, M. (2026) · International Journal of Nursing Practice · doi:10.1111/ijn.70183
GÖDE, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-4599-2.ch008
Limiri, D. M. (2026) · Premier journal of science. · doi:10.70389/pjs.100280
Yi, Q., 骆海燕, Gao, J., Lin, S., & Wu, L. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10755014/v1
Amin, S. M., Almagharbeh, W. T., Mohamed, H. S., Elbakry, M. A. A. E., Alasqah, I., Hamash, K. I., El-Ashry, A. M., & Dreidi, M. M. (2026) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2026.152160
Marawa’a, A. M., Kassabry, M. F., Khalid, H., Abbad, Y., Bsharat, R., Abualoun, A., Awawdah, M., Jazi, S., Bazar, S., & Zawahreh, S. (2026) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2026.152158
Şengül, T., Akyaz, D. Y., Kaplan, B. M., Akyol, Y. E., Cevizci, T., Demiral, M., Mahasneh, D., Shoqirat, N. A., & Kirkland‐Kyhn, H. (2026) · Nursing in Critical Care · doi:10.1111/nicc.70695
“…show that nurses recognise the potential of AI for efficiency and decision support, but remain concerned about ethics, training, dependency, job security, professional roles, preparedness, governance and the acceptable boundaries of AI and robotic influence in patient care [8, 16, 17, 19, 21].”
Tawhari, S. H., Tumala, R. B., & Tawhari, Y. H. (2026) · Nursing Reports · doi:10.3390/nursrep16100370
“Four studies were carried out in the KSA, focusing on nurses, nursing faculty, students, and mixed healthcare professionals [20].”
InfluentialYingqi, D., Zhao, X., Pan, X., & Wei, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1997701
Metadata
- Authors
- Alruwaili, M. M., Abuadas, F. H., Alsadi, M., Alruwaili, A. N., Elsayed Ramadan, O. M., Shaban, M., Al Thobaity, A., Alkahtani, S. M., & El Arab, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Jouf University (SA)
- Department of Maternity and Pediatric Health Nursing, College of Nursing, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia
- Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, Nursing College, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia
- Ministry of Health (SA)
- Department of Health Management and Informatics, AL Moosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
- Corresponding author
- Abuadas, Fuad H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- DIGITAL HEALTH
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 20552076241271803-20552076241271803
- ISSN
- 2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11304479
- OpenAlex
- W4401376712
- Semantic Scholar
- 5b48a702de8601632522c13bbcf5b7e732018d3e
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 10.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Al Jouf University (Deanship of Scientific Research at Jouf University)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in healthcare, nurses' attitudes, nurses' awareness, AI knowledge, gender differences, age differences, educational attainment, generational differences, clinical implementation of AI, change management, nursing workforce
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
