Zum Inhalt

Surgical nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy and readiness levels for medical artificial intelligence

  • Open Access
  • 22.12.2025
  • Research
Erschienen in:

Abstract

Background

This study aims to analyse the correlation between surgical unit nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy levels and their medical artificial intelligence readiness.

Method

The study was descriptive, exploratory, and cross-sectional, and was conducted in Turkey with 339 nurses who were currently working in surgical units between June 2024 and June 2025. Online data collection via Google Forms was used, employing the Descriptive Characteristics Questionnaire, Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale, and Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software with descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation tests.

Results

The mean age of the nurses was 34.35 ± 9.37; 85.5% were female. According to data, 85.5% of the participants heard of the term artificial intelligence at some point, while 73.2% indicated AI will also help the nursing profession. A large and strong positive correlation exists between AI literacy and readiness for medical AI (rₛ = 0.642, p < 0.001). At the subscale level, readiness was also found to be significantly correlated with technical understanding (rₛ = 0.606), critical evaluation (rₛ = 0.672), and practical application (rₛ = 0.558) (all p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The research indicates that with the increase in nurses’ literacy level regarding artificial intelligence, the readiness for the medical application of artificial intelligence also increases. Education and awareness initiatives aimed at developing artificial intelligence literacy are recommended to support the effective and safe use of AI-based technologies in nursing practice.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

AI is a leading technology that is shaping the transformation of healthcare systems in recent years [1]. Artificial intelligence applications in healthcare help professionals to assess, diagnose, plan treatment, and monitor and forecast patient risk to increase safety and quality of care [2]. AI is making substantial contributions to nursing practice. Systems based on AI will allow nurses to help with monitoring vital signs, analyzing patient data, and early detection of clinically significant patterns [3, 4]. This can improve patient outcomes by allowing for early detection of potential complications [3, 5].
Furthermore, due to the AI’s ability to reduce administrative burden, nurses are able to dedicate more time and effort to patients. This increases the efficacy and quality of care processes [6, 7]. Nursing practice refers to the skilled application of clinical judgment and patient-centred values in the provision of technology-based care. In clinical settings, especially in surgical units focused on rapid decision-making, integrated work with advanced technology and patient safety, the ability to work with artificial intelligence has become an essential component of professional competence.
The infusion of artificial intelligence into surgical decision-making processes improves patient care. With the goal of enhancing the information available in pre- and postoperative environments, AI will be implemented more widely [8, 9]. At the moment, surgical nurses have their physical workload lowered thanks to robots with AI software. A review of the literature indicates that robots with different features can be used in the field of surgical nursing. The Da Vinci robot that is controlled by the surgeon is noted for reducing the burden of operating room nurses and increasing the efficiency of surgery by removing the anatomical limitations of human hands during surgery [10].
Ro-bear is a type of robot care bear resembling a polar bear whose job involves transferring patients to their beds and wheelchairs. The use of the Cody robot with bedridden people can help them maintain personal hygiene, dressing, and rehabilitation for stroke patients. The Pepper robot can help patients accustom themselves to the hospital environment due to its multilingualism. The Nao robot is a robot that offers physical support and motivation in treatments and rehabilitation processes. This robot is especially useful for sensitive groups such as children and elderly individuals. The SAM robots visit patients in their rooms to check their status and perform other basic assessments. The IV Robot RIVA ensures patient safety by preparing medications and perfusions administered by the intravenous route in the right doses [6, 11].
The incorporation of surgical nurses into AI-related applications largely depends on their knowledge, perceptions, and readiness relative to AI-based technologies, despite all these efforts. According to the literature, nurses’ knowledge and application skills regarding their AI literacy level are not yet sufficient [9]. Nonetheless, the great majority of the existing studies were conducted on the general nursing population, and information regarding surgical nurses’ AI literacy and readiness levels for medical AI is rather scarce [7, 9, 1215]. Surgical nurses are one of the clinical professionals having maximum interactions with AI-based applications, such as robotic surgical systems, digital patient monitoring tools, automated decision support systems, and sensor-based applications [8, 9]. Thus, it is vital to ascertain the AI awareness and readiness levels in this group for patient safety and for the digitization of clinical decision-making.
The aim of this study is to ascertain the relationship between surgical nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy and their technological readiness. The results are likely to inform revisions to nursing education curricula, approaches for technology integration into clinical practice, and digital health policy-making.

Research questions

  • What is the level of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy among surgical nurses?
  • What is the level of readiness of surgical nurses towards medical artificial intelligence?
  • What factors influence the artificial intelligence (AI) literacy of surgical nurses?
  • What factors influence surgical nurses’ readiness for medical artificial intelligence?
  • Is there a relationship between surgical nurses’ artificial intelligence (AI) literacy and their readiness for medical AI?

Methods

Research design

This study is a descriptive and correlational cross-sectional study. Data were collected using quantitative survey methods and evaluated using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

Research population and sample

The study was conducted with nurses actively working in surgical units (operating rooms, surgical clinics, surgical intensive care units, wound and burn care units) in Turkey between June 2024 and June 2025. Surgical units are units with high standards in terms of patient safety and technological equipment, experiencing high patient circulation. Both elective and emergency surgical procedures are performed in operating rooms and surgical clinics. Nurses working in these units generally work in a shift system and play an active role in preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care processes. In surgical intensive care and wound/burn care units, patient monitoring is provided through advanced technological devices (monitoring systems, infusion pumps, electronic recording systems, etc.).
A sample size for the study was determined using a priori power analysis. The G*Power 3.1 program was used to perform the analysis, based on Cohen’s (1988) recommendations, assuming 5 predictor variables, a 5% significance level (α = 0.05), a medium effect size (f² = 0.15) for the multiple regression model, and 95% power (1–β = 0.95). An analysis showed that at least 138 subjects must be included in the sample for the study to have the planned statistical power. The study’s participants were surgical nurses serving in 21 hospitals in seven geographical regions of Turkey. Data were gathered from the surgical nurses via questionnaire forms. Researchers recruited surgical nurses working at seven teaching, seven university, and seven private hospitals. A teaching and research hospital, a university hospital, and a private hospital were selected from each region, leading to a total of twenty-one hospitals in the study. The sample selection criteria of the study were working as a nurse in a surgical unit, possessing a smartphone, using the internet, and giving informed consent to participate. To maintain the credibility of the online data collection process, the survey system was equipped to allow only one response per IP address, and participation was carried out only after obtaining electronic informed consent. Research data was collected online via Google Forms. The study was completed with 339 surgical nurses who responded to the survey.

Data collection forms

The data for this study were obtained using the Descriptive Characteristics Questionnaire, Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale, and Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale.

Descriptive characteristics questionnaire

The Descriptive Characteristics Questionnaire, prepared by the researchers based on the literature, consisted of 13 questions addressing age, gender, income level, educational status, and thoughts on AI [6, 1113].

Artificial intelligence literacy scale

The Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (AILS) developed by Laupichler et al. (2023) has been adapted to the Turkish language by Karaoğlan and Yılmaz (2023) [16, 17]. The scale consists of three dimensions—technical understanding, critical appraisal, and practical application—and 31 items. It has a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “(1) Strongly disagree” to “(7) Strongly agree.” A high score on the scale indicates that the individual has a high level of artificial intelligence literacy, while a low score indicates that the individual has a low level of artificial intelligence literacy. The Turkish version of the scale has reliability coefficients ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 for its sub-factors, while its overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is 0.99 [17]. In the study, the overall Cronbach’s Alpha value of the scale is 0.98, while the sub-factors are from 0.97 to 0.98.

Medical artificial intelligence readiness scale

The Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale (MAIRS) was created by Karaca et al. (2021) to determine individuals’ readiness levels for medical artificial intelligence applications [18]. The scale itself contains a total of 22 items and uses a 5-point Likert-type system. Participants express their opinion about the items on a five-point scale. The scale ranges from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “5 = Strongly agree”. As the score from the scale increases, individuals’ readiness levels for AI also increase. The reliability coefficients for the sub-factors of the Turkish version of the scale are from 0.97 to 0.98, whereas the overall Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is 0.99 [18]. In this study, the overall Cronbach Alpha value of the scale is 0.98, while the sub-factors range from 0.97 to 0.98.

Data collection

Data was obtained by sending participants a link to a survey created by researchers using Google Forms. The survey link was sent to participants using social media platforms and communication networks (Instagram, WhatsApp, e-mail) via the snowball sampling method. Snowball sampling is based on the principle that, in situations where it is difficult to reach individuals with specific characteristics directly, existing participants refer the researcher to other individuals with similar characteristics. This method has been favoured because it facilitates access to hard-to-reach or dispersed groups and builds trust among participants. This has accelerated the process of identifying individuals to be included in the research and provided practicality in the sample creation stage. The first section of the survey included a consent form detailing the purpose and scope of the study. The second section of the survey included questions from the Descriptive Characteristics Questionnaire, the Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale, and the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale. The responses of nurses who approved the consent form and answered the survey questions were evaluated. The survey took approximately 4–6 min to complete.

Ethical aspects of the study

Ethical approval was obtained from the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the relevant university in order to conduct the study (Date: 29.03.2024 / Decision No: 137548.82). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants invited to participate in the study were informed about the study, and their consent was obtained. Permission to use the scales used in the research was obtained from their authors.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (Version 29.0; Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). The distribution of continuous variables was assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, histograms, and skewness and kurtosis values. It was determined that the variables did not follow a normal distribution. Descriptive statistics were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and number (percentage). Comparisons between groups were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test for differences between two groups and the Kruskal–Wallis test for comparisons between more than two groups. Correlations between variables were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs). Correlation coefficients ≤ 0.30 were interpreted as low, 0.31–0.59 as moderate, and ≥ 0.60 as strong [19]. The explained variance ratio was calculated by taking the square of the correlation coefficient [20]. In all analyses, the statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of N = 339 nurses participated in the study, and the average age of the nurses was 34.35 ± 9.37 years. 85.5% of the participants were female nurses, and 14.5% were male nurses. In terms of marital status, 67.6% were single and 32.4% were married. When their educational status was examined, it was seen that most of the participants (69.9%) were bachelor’s degree graduates. In terms of distribution according to years of experience in the profession, 40.7% of the participants had 6 years or more of experience. In terms of regional distribution, the vast majority of participants live in Western Turkey (81.4%). As for the settlement unit where they live, 74.9% of participants live in a metropolitan city (Fig. 1). The descriptive characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.
Fig. 1
Descriptive characteristics of participants (N = 339)
Bild vergrößern
Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of participants (N = 339)
Variable
Category
n
%
Age (years)
Average ± standard deviation
34.35
9.37
Gender
Male
49
14.5
Female
290
85.5
Marital Status
Single
229
67.6
Married
110
32.4
Educational Status
Health vocational high school / Associate degree
29
8.6
Bachelor’s degree
237
69.9
Master’s degree and above
73
21.5
Years of Work Experience
Less than 1 year
117
34.5
1–5 years
84
24.8
6 years and above
138
40.7
Employer
Public hospital
193
56.9
Private hospital
124
36.6
Other (Day surgery centers)
22
6.5
Department
Operating room
77
22.7
Surgical clinic
162
47.8
Surgical intensive care
60
17.7
Wound and burn care units
40
11.8
Region of Residence in Turkey
West (Marmara, Aegean)
276
81.4
East (Eastern Anatolia, Southeast)
44
13.0
Central (Black Sea, Central Anatolia, Mediterranean)
19
5.6
Place of Residence
Metropolitan city
254
74.9
City
73
21.5
Village/town/district
12
3.5
The vast majority of participants (83.2%) stated that they had heard of the concepts of AI and robotic nursing before. The percentage of those who believe that AI robots will replace nurses is 15%. 73.2% of participants believe that AI technologies will benefit the nursing profession. A high percentage of respondents (80.5%) believe that AI applications will reduce nurses’ workload. 30.4% of participants reported feeling concerned about their jobs due to the development of AI and robotic technologies. Participants’ views on artificial intelligence are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Participants’ views on artificial intelligence (N = 339)
Variable
Category
n
%
Have you heard of artificial intelligence and robotic nursing?
Yes
282
83.2
No
57
16.8
Do you think artificial intelligence robots will replace nurses?
Yes
51
15.0
No
202
59.6
Undecided
86
25.4
Do you think artificial intelligence robots will benefit the nursing profession?
Yes
248
73.2
No
42
12.4
Undecided
49
14.5
Do you think artificial intelligence applications will reduce nurses’ workload?
Yes
273
80.5
No
25
7.4
Undecided
41
12.1
Are you concerned about your profession due to artificial intelligence technologies?
Yes
103
30.4
No
197
58.1
Undecided
39
11.5
A strong positive correlation was found between the MAIRS score and the total AILS score (rₛ = 0.642, p < 0.001). Similarly, moderate to strong positive and statistically significant relationships were found between the readiness scale and the subdimensions of the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale, namely technical understanding (rₛ = 0.606, p < 0.001), critical evaluation (rₛ = 0.672, p < 0.001), and practical application (rₛ = 0.558, p < 0.001) of the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale. Additionally, the subscales of the AILS showed strong correlations among themselves (e.g., technical understanding and critical evaluation, rₛ = 0.808, p < 0.001). These findings indicate that both readiness for artificial intelligence and literacy are closely related (Table 3).
Table 3
Correlations between the medical artificial intelligence readiness scale and the artificial intelligence literacy scale (N = 339)
 
Average ± SS
Min-Max
 
1
2
3
4
5
Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale
70.95 ± 22.22
22–110
rₛ
--
    
p
.
    
Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (Total)
117.19 ± 45.74
31–344
rₛ
0.642
--
   
p
< 0.001*
.
   
Technical understanding sub-dimension
49.94 ± 21.63
14–98
rₛ
0.606
0.925
--
  
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
.
  
Critical evaluation sub-dimension
40.17 ± 16.23
10–70
rₛ
0.672
0.950
0.808
--
 
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
.
 
Practical application sub-dimension
27.09 ± 11.28
7–49
rₛ
0.558
0.875
0.683
0.893
--
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
.
*p < 0.05. SD: Standard Deviation
aStrong correlation, bModerate correlation, rs: Spearman rank correlation coefficient
Participants’ age was positively correlated with the MAIRS (rₛ=0.314, p < 0.001), the AILS total score (rₛ=0.232, p < 0.001), and its subscales Technical Understanding (rₛ=0.127, p = 0.019) and Practical Application (rₛ=0.281, p < 0.001). Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness scores differed according to the gender variable (p = 0.018), and the mean scores of men were found to be higher than those of women. In terms of marital status, the scores of single participants on both scales and subscales were found to be significantly higher than those of married participants (p < 0.05). As the level of education increased, a downward trend was observed in Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness and Artificial Intelligence Literacy scores; bachelor’s degree graduates had the highest averages on both scales (p < 0.05 in all comparisons). No significant difference was found based on years of professional experience (p > 0.05). However, when evaluated in terms of the institution where they worked, nurses working in private hospitals scored higher on both scales than those working in public institutions (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
Table 4
Comparison of participants’ descriptive characteristics and medical artificial intelligence readiness and artificial intelligence literacy levels (N = 339)
  
Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale
Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (Total)
Technical understanding sub-dimension
Critical evaluation sub-dimension
Practical application sub-dimension
Age
rs
0.314
0.232
0.127
0.082
0.281
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
0.019
0.133
< 0.001*
Gender
Male
72.0 ± 22.2
132.8 ± 62.8
49.8 ± 21.4
40.1 ± 16.7
42.9 ± 37.1
Female
64.9 ± 21.3
127.6 ± 50.0
50.9 ± 23.2
40.3 ± 12.9
36.4 ± 28.9
p
0.018*
0.720
0.904
0.969
0.541
Marital Status
Single
72.8 ± 22.0
139.1 ± 61.4
52.2 ± 21.2
41.2 ± 15.5
45.6 ± 38.2
Married
67.1 ± 22.3
117.4 ± 58.0
45.1 ± 21.9
38.0 ± 17.5
34.3 ± 29.7
p
0.015*
0.002*
0.006*
0.113
0.017*
Educational Status
Health vocational high school / Associate degree
66.4 ± 26.1
110.0 ± 56.6
46.5 ± 24.7
35.4 ± 19.6
27.6 ± 17.1
Bachelor’s degree
74.8 ± 20.0
142.0 ± 62.4
52.9 ± 20.9
41.9 ± 15.1
46.7 ± 39.6
Master’s degree and above
60.1 ± 23.9
110.0 ± 50.4
41.7 ± 20.8
36.3 ± 17.3
32.2 ± 24.0
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
0.012*
0.007*
Years of Work Experience
Less than 1 year
72.1 ± 25.5
130.0 ± 61.2
51.6 ± 23.9
41.2 ± 18.5
36.8 ± 29.4
1–5 years
69.0 ± 20.9
139.0 ± 59.8
52.8 ± 21.2
40.5 ± 14.1
45.6 ± 39.3
6 years and above
71.2 ± 20.0
130.0 ± 61.9
46.8 ± 19.5
39.1 ± 15.4
44.1 ± 38.7
p
0.488
0.443
0.252
0.546
0.900
Employer
Public hospital
67.2 ± 22.3
118.0 ± 53.2
47.2 ± 22.2
38.7 ± 16.8
32.4 ± 25.1
Private hospital
77.1 ± 21.4
155.0 ± 66.1
55.5 ± 19.0
42.8 ± 15.1
56.6 ± 44.8
Other (Day surgery centers)
69.1 ± 18.7
124.0 ± 61.0
42.6 ± 24.4
38.4 ± 16.0
43.2 ± 36.2
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
0.008*
< 0.001*
*p < 0.05rs: Spearman rank correlation coefficient
a Mann–Whitney U test, bKruskal–Wallis test
Table 5 shows that the unit of employment variable also created a significant difference in the AILS and its subscales, with the highest mean scores found in surgical units (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found based on the region of residence (p > 0.05), while in terms of settlement, the average scores of participants living in cities were higher.
Table 5
Comparison of participants’ descriptive characteristics and medical artificial intelligence readiness and artificial intelligence literacy levels (N = 339)
  
Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale
Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (Total)
Technical understanding sub-dimension
Critical evaluation sub-dimension
Practical application sub-dimension
Department
Surgical clinic
72.2 ± 22.2
145.0 ± 64.8
51.5 ± 19.8
42.1 ± 14.0
51.6 ± 43.3
Operating room
70.1 ± 24.7
126.0 ± 54.2
52.9 ± 23.2
40.1 ± 17.2
32.7 ± 23.4
Surgical intensive care
67.8 ± 20.0
109.0 ± 56.5
42.1 ± 23.6
34.0 ± 18.7
33.1 ± 26.6
Wound and burn care units
72.4 ± 20.8
125.0 ± 52.6
49.6 ± 20.7
41.5 ± 17.2
33.8 ± 24.8
p
0.242
0.001*
0.008*
0.0013*
0.032*
Region of Residence in Turkey
West (Marmara, Aegean)
71.3 ± 22.7
135.0 ± 63.3
50.7 ± 22.0
40.3 ± 16.3
44.3 ± 38.2
East (Eastern Anatolia. Southeast)
68.7 ± 21.1
122.0 ± 40.6
49.8 ± 18.7
41.6 ± 15.0
30.4 ± 15.0
Central (Black Sea, Central Anatolia, Mediterranean)
70.7 ± 18.6
107.0 ± 61.6
39.2 ± 21.1
34.3 ± 17.9
33.9 ± 32.7
p
0.516
0.067
0.077
0.355
0.253
Place of Residence
Metropolitan city
68.0 ± 23.2
124.0 ± 58.0
49.4 ± 22.9
39.6 ± 17.3
35.2 ± 29.0
City
81.7 ± 15.7
162.0 ± 64.7
52.9 ± 15.4
42.2 ± 11.5
66.8 ± 48.0
Village/town/district
67.7 ± 15.8
117.0 ± 48.3
44.0 ± 25.0
39.9 ± 17.8
32.9 ± 14.2
p
< 0.001*
< 0.001*
0.035*
0.419
< 0.001*
*p < 0.05rs: Spearman rank correlation coefficient
a Mann–Whitney U test, bKruskal–Wallis test

Discussion

Due to the nature of surgical nursing, which is carried out under heavy workloads and time constraints, there is a growing need for AI-supported applications in this field [21, 22]. However, the current literature reveals shortcomings in the integration of AI technologies among nurses actively working in clinical settings [2325]. The rapidly increasing interest in AI in the healthcare field necessitates the development of nurses’ abilities to understand, evaluate, and effectively use these systems, given their important role in the surgical team. As a result, the enhancement of nurses’ AI literacy levels will bring about more effective and extensive employment of AI-based applications in nursing care. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of AI literacy on the level of readiness of surgical nurses.
The mean age of the nurses involved in this study was 34.35 ± 9.37. The nurses’ average age is comparable with other studies in the literature [9, 14]. The results of our study indicated that increasing participant age correlates with greater knowledge, awareness, and application skills about medical artificial intelligence. As participants get older, they tend to have both more work experience and greater variation in scenarios in the health process. Elderly individuals are expected to have greater knowledge and awareness about medical AI tools as they are witnesses to more technological advancements and changes in health care delivery systems for a longer time. In addition, experienced clinician healthcare professionals who have an increased responsibility in the decision-making processes will also feel the need to use the artificial intelligence applications that support diagnosis and treatment processes more actively. Generational differences among nurses can influence their attitudes toward technology, as noted in the literature. In general, younger nurses were found to have more positive attitudes toward technology compared to older nurses [14, 26]. For those who frequently engage with digital tools, the researchers hypothesized that nurses would form a favorable attitude towards the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in nursing. The younger average age of participating nurses supports the assumption that younger nurses exhibit a greater affinity towards technology and are more adaptable than older generations.
The study involved a predominantly female nursing sample size. In our sample, male nurses had higher mean readiness scores than female nurses, whereas no significant gender difference was detected in AI literacy scores. In Turkey and around the world, nursing is a profession mainly done by women, yet previous research indicates that gender-related differences in AI knowledge and readiness are not consistent across settings. For example, a cross-sectional study conducted in Germany identified a significant percentage of male nurses as AI experts and reported gender differences in knowledge levels [15], whereas another Turkish study evaluating nurses’ perceptions and readiness for AI integration in healthcare found female nurses to be more ready [27].
Most of the nurses in our study were single, and it was found that single nurses had higher Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness scores than married nurses. Single nurses have higher artificial intelligence literacy and medical artificial intelligence readiness due to differences in time, work environment, motivation, and access to training. This suggests that family responsibilities may play an indirect role in the process of adapting to professional technology. A study examining the medical artificial intelligence readiness of nurse managers in Turkey reported that single nurses had significantly higher total scores [28]. Similarly, a study conducted by El Gazar et al. (2024) found that single nurses were more likely to accept the use of robots in healthcare than married and divorced nurses [29].
It was determined that the vast majority of nurses participating in our study were bachelor’s degree graduates, and that bachelor’s degree graduate nurses had the highest average scores in artificial intelligence literacy and medical artificial intelligence readiness levels. Graduates may perceive artificial intelligence technologies as a more natural part of their workflow because they have been trained using more computers, simulations and digital clinical applications in their learning processes. Similarly, a study conducted with nursing students reported that participants studying at the bachelor’s degree level had significantly higher artificial intelligence literacy scores than high school students, and that artificial intelligence literacy increased as the class level increased [30].
It was determined that the vast majority of nurses participating in the study had 6 years or more of professional experience and that there was no significant difference in scale score averages based on length of service. Professional experience is not the sole determinant of artificial intelligence literacy and readiness. These levels are shaped more by exposure to technology, opportunities for education, corporate technology infrastructure, and individual desire to learn. Therefore, the fact that no significant difference was observed between experience duration and scale scores is an expected and understandable result. The results of our study are consistent with similar studies in the literature [14, 15, 31].
It is stated that the technological infrastructure status of hospitals and nurses’ exposure to AI applications may vary depending on the type of institution, and that this may affect awareness/attitude [14]. Our research found that less than half of nurses work in private hospitals, and nurses working in private hospitals scored significantly higher on both scales than those working in public institutions. The higher artificial intelligence literacy and medical artificial intelligence readiness scores of nurses working in private hospitals can be attributed to access to technological infrastructure, educational opportunities, the mandatory use of digital systems in workflows, and an innovative organisational culture. This finding demonstrates that the level of digital transformation within organisations is a significant determinant of healthcare workers’ adaptation to technology. This situation stems from the more advanced technological infrastructure in private institutions, greater investment in digital transformation applications, and employees’ increased contact with technology [14, 32].
The literature reports that perioperative nurses are more familiar with AI applications and have higher levels of knowledge due to their increased work with robotic surgery, monitoring systems, and other technological devices [9, 15]. The vast majority of surgical nurses participating in our study work in surgical clinics (inpatient clinics), and nurses working in these clinics were found to have higher AILS and subscale scores. The higher level of artificial intelligence literacy among nurses working in surgical clinics can be attributed to the widespread use of technological equipment, the need for digital support in critical decision-making processes, team-based workflows, and the innovative nature of the surgical field.
Our study found that the vast majority of nurses live in western Turkey, but no significant difference was found in scale scores based on region of residence. However, the average scores of nurses living in cities were found to be significantly higher. No studies in the literature were found that directly examined the effect of place of residence on artificial intelligence literacy and readiness. Based on our findings, it is thought that surgical nurses living in cities have greater access to digital resources and educational opportunities. These findings indicate that geographical and demographic factors must also be considered in the integration of technology into the healthcare system.
In recent years, the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the healthcare field has significantly impacted nursing practices. Although the literature emphasizes that nurses are among the healthcare professionals who interact most with AI, it is noted that nurses’ active participation in the development, integration, and application processes of these technologies is not yet sufficient [12, 13]. It was determined that the vast majority of nurses participating in our study had heard of the concept of AI before. The fact that most nurses have heard of AI before shows that AI is becoming increasingly prominent in healthcare services and that the nursing profession is actively involved in the digitalization process. Ergin et al. (2022) similarly stated in their research that nurses knew the definition of AI [33]. Furthermore, a study conducted by Özdemir and Biçer (2025) to determine the digital health and AI literacy levels of healthcare workers found that nurses’ AI awareness was above average and that educational level, age, professional experience, the clinic they worked in, and whether they followed technology were among the factors affecting their AI awareness [34]. These findings indicate that the increasing visibility of AI in healthcare services is also being recognized and followed by professionals in the field. AI technologies in the delivery of healthcare services contribute to supporting diagnostic processes, increasing service efficiency, and reducing medical errors [35]. In our study, the vast majority of nurses believe that AI will contribute to the nursing profession and that these technologies will reduce their workload. Furthermore, it was determined that the vast majority of nurses do not think that AI robots will replace nurses in the future and believe that they will benefit the nursing profession. Nurses consider artificial intelligence to be a tool that is supportive, facilitates their functions, and enhances the quality of care; however, due to the human aspect of nursing, they state that AI cannot completely replace nurses. This approach shows that AI with nursing care can develop and progress in a complementary structure and points to a healthy process of adaptation to technology. According to Engin et al. (2023), the implementation of artificial intelligence in robot systems may reduce the workloads of operating room nurses [36]. The findings of our research are in line with the literature, indicating that nurses hold a positive attitude.
The integration of AI technologies in the healthcare area faces a number of challenges and limitations for realization. To successfully embrace technological innovations, it is important to analyze existing barriers and develop novel approaches [7, 37]. Indeed, about one-third of the nurses in this study expressed concern over the future of their profession, which shows reluctance towards AI due to concerns regarding professional identity, ethical responsibility, and human-centric care [7].
Due to the rapid infiltration of AI technologies in the healthcare field, knowledge, skills, and awareness concerning the effective use of these technologies have become an essential issue. In particular, this is important for nurses working in clinical applications [1, 18, 38]. In this study, the average score for surgical nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy (117.19 ± 45.74) was found to be significantly higher than the figures reported in the literature. This may be due to surgical nurses’ interest in digital technologies, their adaptability, and their frequent exposure to the use of such technologies. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of the study group was in the younger age group may also be an explanatory factor in terms of being composed of individuals who are more tech-savvy. Various studies in the literature reveal that nurses’ AI literacy levels are generally moderate. For example, in a study evaluating perioperative nurses, the average AI literacy score of nurses was reported to be moderate (44.35 ± 5.88) [9]. Similarly, a study conducted in China also found that nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy was again at an intermediate level (56.27 ± 8.60) [39].
AI readiness refers to individuals having the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to use AI applications in healthcare effectively [18]. AI technology, which is rapidly spreading and increasing in influence in the healthcare sector, increases the likelihood of nurses encountering such technologies in clinical settings [40]. In our study, surgical nurses’ medical AI readiness levels were found to be above average (70.95 ± 22.22). The fact that surgical nurses’ Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale scores are above average indicates that these nurses generally have a positive attitude towards adapting to, accepting and using artificial intelligence-based applications. Studies conducted with nurse managers in the literature have reported that nurses’ readiness for AI technologies is at a moderate level [28, 33]. A study conducted with neonatal nurses indicated that nurses’ readiness for AI technologies was at a moderate level.
This study found a significant and strong positive correlation between nurses’ Artificial Intelligence Literacy and their readiness for Medical Artificial Intelligence (rₛ = 0.642, p < 0.001). The presence of moderate to strong correlations between readiness and sub-dimensions such as technical understanding, critical evaluation, and practical application indicates that the level of knowledge and skills related to artificial intelligence is a determining factor in nurses’ adoption of this technology. Nurses must have sufficient functional knowledge (technical knowledge), critical evaluation skills, and practical application skills to adopt and use this technology, among other things. To put it simply, the more knowledgeable and skilled a nurse is, the more prepared he or she is to use the technology. This finding is consistent with other studies that highlight technology literacy as a crucial element of one’s technological adaptation [1, 14, 38, 41]. Further on, the literature details various studies that report cognitive awareness and digital literacy play an essential role in the ability of nurses to use AI and technology [28, 42, 43]. To safely, ethically, and effectively use AI applications, nurses must receive support not just in hardware but also in their cognitive and critical skills. In the modern world of digitization and healthcare services delivery, the introduction of educational content focused on AI in undergraduate and continuing education can aid in better participation of nurses in technology-based decision-making [38, 41].

Strengths and limitations

One of the strengths of this study is that it reached a large sample of nurses working in surgical units across Turkey and comprehensively assessed their levels of artificial intelligence literacy and readiness for medical artificial intelligence. Furthermore, the use of validated and reliable scales increased the reliability of the data.
However, the study has some limitations. The results may not be applicable to other regions since Turkey’s western region mostly participated in the study. Due to the snowball sampling method, there may have been an over-representation of nurses with a keen interest in artificial intelligence in the study. The study sample, which includes only surgical nurses, limits generalizability to the entire population of nurses. In addition, there was no data collected about the use of AI-based technologies by nurses at their respective clinics. For subsequent studies, it could be recommended to incorporate participants’ past know-how with AI influencing literacy and readiness levels, either as variables or controls.

Conclusion

The correlation between surgical nurse AI literacy levels and readiness for medical AI is high and significant (p-value < 0.01). Most of the nurses who participated said that they know what AI is and that AI can help the nursing profession. In addition, positive significant correlations exist between AI literacy sub-dimensions and levels of readiness, specifically technical understanding, critical evaluation, and practical application.
According to the results, improving AI literacy skills for surgical nurses is crucial for the effective, safe, and ethical use of AI applications. In this sense, content related to artificial intelligence (AI) should be added to the nursing undergraduate and graduate curricula, and nurses’ adaptation to digital health technologies should be supported in the in-service training.
Healthcare organizations can enhance staff adaptation at the institutional level through structured training based on nurses’ technological capacities during the integration of AI-based applications. In such a process, it is necessary to train nurses not just as users but also as health care professionals with an ethical and critical look at AI applications.
It also shows that the artificial intelligence literacy and readiness levels of surgical nurses are influenced by institution type, clinical experience, age, and education. This provides important insights for AI developers. For example, the design of user-friendly interfaces and applications should account for the levels of adaptation to technology of nurses and clinical experiences. In addition, modules and training support for nurses working in various clinical areas (surgery, operating room, wound care, etc.) can be designed and made available. Thus, this paper can enable nurses to use AI systems safely and effectively. Therefore, the findings are not only relevant for nursing education and organizational training programs but also serve as a guide for developers in the process of integrating and developing AI systems into healthcare environments.
Future studies conducted in comparison with nurse groups in different clinical units and focusing in depth on nurses’ experiences using qualitative methods will contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of perceptions and applications related to artificial intelligence.

Acknowledgements

We thank the nurses who contributed to our study.

Declarations

Ethical Board Approval required to conduct this study was obtained from Istanbul Gedik University Scientific Research Ethics Committee (Date: 29.03.2024 / Decision No: 137548.82). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants included in the study were informed about the research, and their consent was obtained.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Download
Titel
Surgical nurses’ artificial intelligence literacy and readiness levels for medical artificial intelligence
Verfasst von
Niran Çoban
Kerime Derya Beydağ
Publikationsdatum
22.12.2025
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Nursing / Ausgabe 1/2026
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6955
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-04248-6
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Gray K, Slavotinek J, Dimaguila GL, Choo D. Artificial intelligence education for the health workforce: expert survey of approaches and needs. JMIR Med Educ. 2022;8:e35223. https://doi.org/10.2196/35223.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ragavi V, Santha Sheela AC, Narayanan Kannaiyan G. Impact of artificial intelligence in the field of health care. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1831:012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1831/1/012006.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee H, Min H, Oh S, Shim K. Mobile technology in undergraduate nursing education: A systematic review. Healthc Inf Res. 2018;24:97. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2018.24.2.97.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Appelboom G, Taylor BE, Bruce E, Bassile CC, Malakidis C, Yang A, et al. Mobile Phone-Connected wearable motion sensors to assess postoperative mobilization. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3:e78. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3785.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Agarwal DK, Viers BR, Rivera ME, Nienow DA, Frank I, Tollefson MK, et al. Physical activity monitors can be successfully implemented to assess perioperative activity in urologic surgery. Mhealth. 2018;4:43–43. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2018.09.05.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bakanoğlu Kalkavan E, Çoban N. The impact of developing technology on the Art of nursing. Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Dergisi. 2025;7:77–82. https://doi.org/10.48071/sbuhemsirelik.1636754.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Von Gerich H, Moen H, Block LJ, Chu CH, DeForest H, Hobensack M, et al. Artificial intelligence -based technologies in nursing: A scoping literature review of the evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;127:104153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104153.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Chadebecq F, Lovat LB, Stoyanov D. Artificial intelligence and automation in endoscopy and surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;20:171–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-022-00701-y.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Kahraman H, Akutay S, Yüceler Kaçmaz H, Taşci S. Artificial intelligence literacy levels of perioperative nurses: the case of Türkiye. Nurs Health Sci. 2025;27. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.70059.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Locsin RC, Ito H. Can humanoid nurse robots replace human nurses? J Nurs. 2018;5:1. https://doi.org/10.7243/2056-9157-5-1.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Çoban N, Eryiğit T, Dülcek S, Beydağ D, Ortabağ T. Hemşirelik mesleğinde Yapay Zeka ve robot Teknolojilerinin Yeri. Fenerbahçe Univ J Health Sci. 2022;2:378–85.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Ronquillo CE, Peltonen L, Pruinelli L, Chu CH, Bakken S, Beduschi A, et al. Artificial intelligence in nursing: priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the nursing and artificial intelligence leadership collaborative. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77:3707–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14855.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Clancy TR. Artificial intelligence and nursing: the future is now. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2020;50:125–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000855.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Alruwaili MM, Abuadas FH, Alsadi M, Alruwaili AN, Elsayed Ramadan OM, Shaban M, et al. Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: implications for nursing practice. Digit Health. 2024;10. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241271803.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Sommer D, Schmidbauer L, Wahl F. Nurses’ perceptions, experience and knowledge regarding artificial intelligence: results from a cross-sectional online survey in Germany. BMC Nurs. 2024;23:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01884-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Laupichler MC, Aster A, Haverkamp N, Raupach T. Development of the scale for the assessment of non-experts’ AI literacy – An exploratory factor analysis. Computers Hum Behav Rep. 2023;12:100338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100338.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Karaoğlan Yılmaz FG, Yılmaz R. Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Bilgi ve İletişim. Teknolojileri Dergisi. 2023;5:172–90. https://doi.org/10.53694/bited.1376831.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Karaca O, Çalışkan SA, Demir K. Medical artificial intelligence readiness scale for medical students (MAIRS-MS) – development, validity and reliability study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02546-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:15–20.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: the use of correlation techniques. Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7:187. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.192046.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Uğurlu Z, Karahan A, Ünlü H, Abbasoğlu A, Özhan Elbaş N, Avcı Işık S, et al. The effects of workload and working conditions on operating room nurses and technicians. Workplace Health Saf. 2015;63:399–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079915592281.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Nawrat Z. Introduction to AI-driven surgical robots. Artif Intell Surg. 2023;3:90–7. https://doi.org/10.20517/ais.2023.14.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Connor S, Yan Y, Thilo FJS, Felzmann H, Dowding D, Lee JJ. Artificial intelligence in nursing and midwifery: A systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32:2951–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16478.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdullah R, Fakieh B. Health care employees’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence applications: survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e17620. https://doi.org/10.2196/17620.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Fritz RL, Dermody G. A nurse-driven method for developing artificial intelligence in smart homes for aging-in-place. Nurs Outlook. 2019;67:140–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2018.11.004.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat 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). Interact Learn Environ. 2024;32:373–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2086579.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Erkayıran O, Aslan R. Evaluation of nurses’ perceptions and readiness for artificial intelligence integration in healthcare: A Cross-Sectional study in Turkey. J Adv Nurs. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70256.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Eminoğlu A, Çelikkanat Ş. Assessment of the relationship between executive nurses’ leadership Self-Efficacy and medical artificial intelligence readiness. Int J Med Inf. 2024;184:105386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105386.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat El-Gazar HE, Abdelhafez S, Ali AM, Shawer M, Alharbi TAF, Zoromba MA. Are nurses and patients willing to work with service robots in healthcare? A mixed-methods study. BMC Nurs. 2024;23:718. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02336-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Jiang Z, Liu Q, Jiang N, Ning M, Yu Q. Artificial intelligence literacy and its associated factors among nursing students. Nurse Educ. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001989.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Özçevik Subaşi D, Akça Sümengen A, Semerci R, Şimşek E, Çakır GN, Temizsoy E. Paediatric nurses’ perspectives on artificial intelligence applications: A cross-sectional study of concerns, literacy levels and attitudes. J Adv Nurs. 2025;81:1353–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16335.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Abuzaid MM, Elshami W, Fadden SM. Integration of artificial intelligence into nursing practice. Health Technol (Berl). 2022;12:1109–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-022-00697-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Ergin E, Karaarslan D, Şahan S, Çınar Yücel Ş. Artificial intelligence and robot nurses: from nurse managers’ perspective: a descriptive cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30:3853–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13646.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Özdemir H, Biçer EB. Sağlık kurumlarında çalışanların Dijital sağlık ve Yapay zekâ okuryazarlık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Bus Manage Studies: Int J. 2025;13:807–27. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i2.2535.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Demir K, Karaca O, Çalışkan SA. Sağlık çalışanları Yapay Zekaya hazır mı? J Artif Intell Health Sci. 2021;1:35–35. https://doi.org/10.52309/jai.2021.6.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Ergin E, Karaarslan D, Şahan S, Bingöl Ü. Can artificial intelligence and robotic nurses replace operating room nurses? The quasi-experimental research. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:1847–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01592-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Parthasarathy R, Steinbach T, Knight J, Knight L. Framework to enhance nurses’ use of EMR. Hosp Top. 2018;96:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00185868.2018.1488545.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Nes AAG, Steindal SA, Larsen MH, Heer HC, Lærum-Onsager E, Gjevjon ER. Technological literacy in nursing education: A scoping review. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37:320–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.01.008.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Zeng Q, Huang X, Zhu J, Su S, Hu Y, Zhang X. Mechanisms of nurses’ AI use intention formation in Sichuan, Yunnan, and Beijing, China: mediating effects of AI literacy via self-efficacy-to-attitude pathways. Front Public Health. 2025;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1622802.
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Taskiran N. Effect of artificial intelligence course in nursing on students’ medical artificial intelligence readiness. Nurse Educ. 2023;48:E147–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001446.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Tseng L-P, Huang L-P, Chen W-R. Exploring artificial intelligence literacy and the use of ChatGPT and copilot in instruction on nursing academic report writing. Nurse Educ Today. 2025;147:106570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106570.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaya G, Büyükyılmaz F, Çulha Y, Akyürek P. Investigation of the relationship between medical artificial intelligence readiness and individual innovativeness levels in nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2025;151:106721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106721.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Asal MGR, Alsenany SA, Elzohairy NW, El-Sayed AAI. The impact of digital competence on pedagogical innovation among nurse educators: the moderating role of artificial intelligence readiness. Nurse Educ Pract. 2025;85:104367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104367.CrossRefPubMed