EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

10.1016/s1541-9800(11)70728-1

CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs · 2000

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

<h4>Aim</h4>To examine nursing academics' perceptions and experiences of artificial intelligence (AI) integration in nursing education.<h4>Design</h4>Scoping review.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched in August 2025.<h4>Methods</h4>A scoping review using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Peer-reviewed original research and reviews published in English (2019-2025) were included if they examined nursing educators' perspectives, attitudes, or experiences with AI in nursing education across undergraduate, postgraduate, and professional contexts. The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) framework was used to classify pedagogical integration levels.<h4>Results</h4>Fifteen studies from eight countries, encompassing 2004 nursing academics, were included. A pattern described as an "adoption paradox" was identified: whilst most academics believe AI will revolutionise nursing education, implementation remains conservative. Two-thirds of applications operate at the augmentation level, with none achieving transformative redefinition. Nursing academics use AI selectively, predominantly for academic productivity and research writing but rarely for student assessment. Primary barriers included knowledge gaps, institutional policy vacuums, and pronounced global access inequities. Academics expressed concerns regarding critical thinking erosion and professional identity threats whilst acknowledging efficiency benefits.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Nursing academics appear to adopt AI selectively, prioritising preservation of core professional values while embracing applications perceived to enhance, rather than replace, educational practice. The absence of transformative integration suggests perceived incompatibilities between artificial intelligence and nursing's relational foundations, signalling a need for more active pedagogical engagement to bridge this widening gap.<h4>Impact</h4>This review addresses the critical gap in understanding how nursing academics integrate artificial intelligence while maintaining professional values. Despite high optimism, actual implementation remains basic, with multiple barriers limiting transformative adoption. Findings provide evidence for nursing education programs globally regarding faculty development, institutional policy frameworks, and curriculum design strategies integrating technological advancement whilst maintaining person-centred values.<h4>No patient or public contribution</h4>Not applicable, as no patients or public were involved.

Abstract: PubMed · Datensatz

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Nicht angegeben
Quelle
CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs
Publikation
2000-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
0849-6757
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

(2000). 10.1016/s1541-9800(11)70728-1. CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70728
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1 · Lizenz 2