Keywords
Artificial Intelligence
Wound Care
Caregivers
Ostomy
Coping Strategies
How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool in health education, with the potential to enhance scientific literacy, critical thinking, and evidence-informed decision-making. In specialist nursing education, particularly within tissue viability, innovative pedagogical strategies are required to strengthen research competencies. This study aimed to analyse and to compare the integration of AI as an educational support tool through two applied case studies.
Methods. Within a specialist/master’s nursing curriculum, students formulated structured research questions, performed systematic database searches, and interacted with AI tools using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two case studies were developed: (i) caregiver burden in diabetic foot ulcers and (ii) coping strategies in ostomy patients. Traditional narrative and integrative literature reviews (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, B-On) were compared with AI-assisted searches (ChatGPT-4.0, SciSpace, Consensus). Data were screened, extracted, and analysed through thematic analysis.
Results. In the first case study, both traditional and AI-assisted searches identified the same three eligible studies addressing caregiver burden. Common factors included female gender, low income, low educational level, high caregiving workload, limited social support, and poor communication with health professionals. AI retrieval was faster but required human critical appraisal. In the second case study, three studies on coping strategies in ostomy patients were identified, highlighting active information-seeking, professional guidance, peer support, cognitive reframing, and religious or social support. AI outputs overlapped with these findings and emphasised emotional and cognitive dimensions such as acceptance and self-efficacy.
Discussion and conclusions. The integration of AI improved the efficiency of evidence retrieval and supported enriched thematic analysis. Although it did not replace methodological rigour or human critical reasoning, AI functioned as a valuable complementary pedagogical resource, enhancing student autonomy, scientific literacy, and reflective practice.
References
1. Aredes NDA, Cecilio JO, Oliveira FS, Cavalcante AMRZ, Campbell SH. Active methodologies in teaching the nursing process: scoping review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2025;83:104274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104274
2. Ghezzi JFSA, Higa EFR, Lemes MA, Marin MJS. Strategies of active learning methodologies in nursing education: an integrative literature review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74(1):e20200130. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0130
3. Ma J, Wen J, Qiu Y, et al. The role of artificial intelligence in shaping nursing education: a comprehensive systematic review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2025;84:104345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104345
4. Ghimire A, Qiu Y. Redefining pedagogy with artificial intelligence: how nursing students are shaping the future of learning. Nurse Educ Pract. 2025;84:104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104330
5. Benfatah M, Youlyouz-Marfak I, Saad E, Hilali A, Nejjari C, Marfak A. Impact of artificial intelligence-enhanced debriefing on clinical skills development in nursing students: a comparative study. Teach Learn Nurs. 2024;19(3):e574-e579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.04.007
6. Akutay S, Yüceler Kaçmaz H, Kahraman H. Effect of artificial intelligence supported case analysis on nursing students’ case management performance and satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ Pract. 2024;80:104142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2024.104142
7. Boscardin CK, Gin B, Golde PB, Hauer KE. ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence for medical education: potential impact and opportunity. Acad Med. 2024;99(1):22-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005439
8. Bond M, Khosravi H, De Laat M, et al. A meta-systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: a call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2024;21(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
9. El Arab RA, Al Moosa OA, Abuadas FH, Somerville J. The role of artificial intelligence in nursing education and practice: umbrella review. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e69881. https://doi.org/10.2196/69881
10. Zhang F, Liu X, Wu W, Zhu S. Evolution of chatbots in nursing education: narrative review. JMIR Med Educ. 2024;10:e54987. https://doi.org/10.2196/54987
11. Tseng LP, Huang LP, Chen WR. 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
12. PRISMA Group. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. Accessed [01.12.2025]. https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-flow-diagram
13. Costa S, Leite Â, Pinheiro M, Pedras S, Pereira MG. Burden and quality of life in caregivers of patients with amputated diabetic foot. Psych J. 2020;9(5):707-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.341
14. Hançerlioğlu S, Toygar İ, Ayhan A, et al. Burden of diabetic foot patients’ caregivers and affecting factors: a cross-sectional study. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2023;22(4):680-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346211036530
15. Doss ER, Popejoy LL. Informal family caregiving of patients with diabetic extremity wounds: an integrative review. West J Nurs Res. 2023;45(3):272-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459221115694
16. Melo R, Rua M, Santos C. Apoio e capacitação dos cuidadores familiares: programa de intervenção de enfermagem. Millenium. 2018;2(5):73-80. https://doi.org/10.29352/mill0205.07.00171
17. Baião V, Rodrigues AM, Alvarelhão JJ, Ferré-Grau C. Interdisciplinary intervention plan on the informal caregiver: a mixed-methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025; Mar 5;25(1):339. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12213-x.
18. Sun V, Raz DJ, Kim JY. Caring for the informal cancer caregiver. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2019;13(3):238-242. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000438
19. Rodrigues AM, Ferreira PL, Ferré-Grau C. Providing informal home care for pressure ulcer patients: how it affects carers’ quality of life and burden. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(19-20):3026-3035. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13356
20. Assembleia da República (Portugal). Lei n.º 100/2019, de 6 de setembro: Estatuto do Cuidador Informal. Diário da República I Série. 2019:3-16.
21. Chen Y, Yan Z, Li L, Liang Y, Tang L. Exploring the illness perceptions of patients with urostomy based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: a descriptive qualitative study. Nurs Health Sci. 2024;26:e70001. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.70001
22. Son H, Kang Y. Coping processes of patients with ostomies in South Korea: a focus group study. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(1):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9010021
23. Choudhary M, Kaur H. Experiences of living with intestinal ostomy: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Indian J Palliat Care. 2020;26(4):421-427. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpc.IJPC_21_20
24. Ang SY, Chen HC, Siah RJ, He HG, Klainin-Yobas P. Depression after stoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04871-0
25. Bondarchuk O, Balakhtar V, Pinchuk N, Pustovalov I, Pavlenok K. Adaptation of coping strategies to reduce the impact of stress and loneliness on the psychological well-being of adults. J Law Sust Dev. 2023;11(10):1-26. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i10.1852
26. Hughes SL, Romo LK. An exploration of how individuals with an ostomy communicatively manage uncertainty. Health Commun. 2020;35(3):375-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1563850
27. Stavropoulou A, Vlamakis D, Kaba E, et al. Living with a stoma: exploring the lived experience of patients with permanent colostomy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8512. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168512
28. Xi Z, Jiang H, Zhou H, et al. Influence of stigma and disability acceptance on psychosocial adaptation in patients with stoma: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Front Psychol. 2022;13:937374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937374
29. Ayaz-Alkaya S. Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: a review of literature. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):243-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13018
30. Dabas M, Kapp S, Gefen A. Utilizing image processing techniques for wound management and evaluation in clinical practice: establishing the feasibility of implementing artificial intelligence in routine wound care. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2025;38(1):31-39. https://doi.org/10.1097/ASW.0000000000000246
31. Rippon MG, Fleming L, Chen T, Rogers AA, Ousey K. Artificial intelligence in wound care: diagnosis, assessment and treatment of hard-to-heal wounds: a narrative review. J Wound Care. 2024;33(4):229-242. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2024.33.4.229
Authors retain copyright in their work and do not transfer copyright to the Journal or Publisher.
Upon acceptance and publication, authors grant iEditore a non-exclusive right of first publication and a non-exclusive right to publish, reproduce, distribute, preserve, register, index, promote, communicate, and make the article available as part of the International Journal of Wound Research.
Unless otherwise clearly indicated, the published Version of Record is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).
The CC BY 4.0 licence permits readers and other third parties to copy, share, distribute, reproduce, adapt, translate, and reuse the published article in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the authors and original publication, a link to the licence is provided, and any changes are indicated.
Authors may share, deposit, reproduce, distribute, adapt, translate, and otherwise reuse their own original work without requesting permission from the Journal or Publisher. The CC BY 4.0 licence governs reuse by readers and other third parties and does not restrict the authors’ exercise of the copyright they retain.
The Creative Commons licence applies only to material for which the authors or Publisher are legally entitled to grant that licence. Third-party material excluded from the licence must be clearly identified and may require separate permission for reuse.