Correlational study found reduced academic stress with AI usage in nursing and midwifery students, suggesting benefits for education.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into education has the potential to transform teaching and learning methods, particularly in healthcare training. This study explores the correlation between AI use and academic stress management in nursing and midwifery students at the higher institute of nursing and health technology professions of Meknes. A sample of 287 students was evaluated, comprising 253 nursing and 34 midwifery students. This results showed that 78% of students regularly used AI technologies, including online courses, study software and time management applications. Academic stress levels were measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). Nursing students showed a mean stress level of 19.5 (SD: 5.26), while midwifery students had a mean level of 16.95 (SD: 6.76). A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.34, p < 0.01) between AI use and academic stress levels. This relationship indicates that students who frequently use AI technologies tend to experience lower levels of academic stress. This trend highlights the potential of AI as a tool for mitigating the pressures commonly faced by students in academic settings. The findings from multiple regression analyses further reinforce this conclusion, revealing that AI use continues to be a significant predictor of reduced academic stress. Importantly, this relationship holds true even after controlling for a range of confounding variables, such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status. These results suggest that AI technologies may offer a consistent and reliable means of alleviating stress among students, regardless of their demographic background. This insight emphasizes the importance of integrating AI tools into educational practices as a means of supporting students' mental well-being and enhancing their overall academic experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benammi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: