An interventional study of Generative AI-Supported Nursing Process Education and Case Study-Based Nursing Process Education in Nursing Education, Nursing Process and Learning Outcome, sponsored by Istanbul Medipol University Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-29.
Sponsored by Istanbul Medipol University Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-supported education in teaching the nursing process on nursing students' learning outcomes. The study was conducted with undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the Nursing Process course for the first time at a foundation university in Istanbul, Türkiye. After a 7-week instructor-centered theoretical course, students were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group using computer-based simple randomization. Over three consecutive weeks, the intervention group worked on three patient case scenarios using a generative AI platform (Gemini), guided by pre-defined themes and prompts covering data collection, nursing diagnosis, planning, and implementation. The accuracy, consistency, and alignment of AI-generated responses with the nursing process steps were then discussed in class. During the same period, the control group completed three different case studies using the instructor's standard care plan template. Nursing process knowledge, self-efficacy in clinical performance, and clinical decision-making confidence and anxiety were measured before and after the intervention, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence and the course were measured after the intervention.
A total of 173 eligible students were randomized (intervention n = 85; control n = 88), and the study was completed with 140 students (intervention n = 68; control n = 72). Students who were repeating the course or were horizontal or vertical transfer students were excluded. The primary outcome was nursing process knowledge, measured with a researcher-developed Nursing Process Knowledge Test. Secondary outcomes were measured with the Self-Efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale, the Nursing Anxiety and Self-Confidence with Clinical Decision Making Scale, and the Attitude Toward Artificial Intelligence and Its Course Scale. Data were collected through electronic forms and analyzed using IBM SPSS 22.0.
7,201 studies on the registry are indexed under Anxiety Disorders; 1,682 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 173 is above the median of 80 across 6,057 interventional studies indexed under Anxiety Disorders.
Browse Anxiety Disorders studies →Istanbul Medipol University Hospital is the lead sponsor of 366 studies on the registry; 46 are open to participants now.
Compared within Anxiety Disorders, the registry's first condition term, which may not be this study's main condition. Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily. How we classify →
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Over three consecutive weeks, students worked on a different patient case scenario each week (week 1: diabetic foot; week 2: hyponatremia; week 3: primiparous cesarean birth) using a generative AI platform. Each week focused on a different step of the nursing process (week 1: data collection and assessment; week 2: nursing diagnosis; week 3: planning and implementation) and was guided by pre-defined themes and prompts. AI-generated responses were discussed in class for accuracy, consistency, and alignment with the nursing process steps.
Behavioral: Generative AI-Supported Nursing Process Education
Over three consecutive weeks, students completed three different patient case studies, one each week, focusing on the nursing process steps (week 1: data collection and assessment; week 2: nursing diagnosis; week 3: planning and implementation), using concept mapping, without the use of generative AI.
Behavioral: Case Study-Based Nursing Process Education
Students used a generative AI platform for three consecutive weeks, working on one patient case per week (diabetic foot, hyponatremia, primiparous cesarean birth). Each case was analyzed through pre-defined themes and guiding prompts that covered the nursing process steps: data classification and interpretation, nursing diagnosis formulation and justification, prioritization, planning, and implementation. Students were expected to use only the prepared prompts and to report their analyses. AI-generated responses were then discussed in class for accuracy, consistency, and alignment with the nursing process steps. The intervention followed a 7-week instructor-centered theoretical course.
Students completed three different patient case studies over three consecutive weeks, one per week, as part of routine instruction. Each case study was completed using concept mapping, without the use of generative AI. The intervention followed the same 7-week instructor-centered theoretical course as the intervention group.
Change in nursing process knowledge score
Nursing process knowledge was measured with the researcher-developed Nursing Process Knowledge Test, a multiple-choice test covering data collection, nursing diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Each question has four options and one correct answer. Correct answers are scored 1 and incorrect or blank answers 0. Total scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores indicate a higher level of nursing process knowledge. The same test was administered at three time points.
Time frame: Baseline (before the theoretical course), after the theoretical course (before randomization), and immediately after completion of the 3-week intervention
Change in self-efficacy in clinical performance score
Self-efficacy in clinical performance was measured with the Self-Efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale (Cheraghi et al., 2009; Turkish version by Pozam and Zaybak, 2016). The scale has 37 items in four subscales: data collection, diagnosis and planning, implementation, and evaluation. Each item is rated from 0% (not sure) to 100% (completely sure). Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy in clinical performance.
Time frame: Baseline (before the theoretical course) and immediately after completion of the 3-week intervention
Change in clinical decision-making confidence score
Confidence in clinical decision-making was measured with the confidence section of the Nursing Anxiety and Self-Confidence with Clinical Decision Making Scale (White, 2011; Turkish version by Bektas et al., 2017). The section has 27 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale; total scores range from 27 to 162. Higher scores indicate higher confidence in clinical decision-making.
Time frame: Baseline (before the theoretical course) and immediately after completion of the 3-week intervention
Change in clinical decision-making anxiety score
Anxiety in clinical decision-making was measured with the anxiety section of the Nursing Anxiety and Self-Confidence with Clinical Decision Making Scale (White, 2011; Turkish version by Bektas et al., 2017). The section has 27 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale; total scores range from 27 to 162. Lower scores indicate lower anxiety in clinical decision-making.
Time frame: Baseline (before the theoretical course) and immediately after completion of the 3-week intervention
Attitude toward artificial intelligence and the course score
Attitudes toward artificial intelligence and the course were measured with the Attitude Toward Artificial Intelligence and Its Course Scale (Suh and Ahn, 2022; Turkish version by Benzer et al., 2025). The scale has 22 items in three subscales (cognitive, affective, behavioral), rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes.
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the 3-week intervention
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from Mar 2026 to primary completion in Jun 2026, 2 months.
Of 3,836 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Anxiety Disorders, half reached primary completion within 12 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 28. This study's 2 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 3,938 studies reached it within 12 months; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 28.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Istanbul Medipol University Hospital →