Bibliometric analysis reveals trends in AI literacy research in health services, highlighting education and ethics.
Purpose: This study aims to examine the developmental trajectory, intellectual structure, and thematic orientations of the scientific literature on artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in health services using bibliometric analysis. It specifically seeks to identify the key concepts, authors, countries, and documents that have shaped the evolution of AI literacy research in this field.Methods: Bibliographic data consisting of English-language articles and review papers published up to 2025 and indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection were retrieved on 20 January 2026. Following predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 158 publications were included in the analysis. The dataset was quantitatively analyzed using bibliometric and network-based methods, including co-authorship analysis, citation analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and bibliographic coupling, with the support of VOSviewer software.Results: The findings reveal a substantial increase in AI literacy research in health services, particularly after 2023, with the number of publications rising from 6 in 2023 to 25 in 2024 and 124 in 2025. Co-authorship analysis shows that scholarly output is concentrated around a limited number of authors and countries. Citation analysis identifies studies by Boscardin (2024) and Esmaeilzadeh (2024) as central contributions shaping the intellectual core of the field. Keyword co-occurrence analysis highlights prominent concepts such as AI, AI literacy, medical education, nursing education, and ethics, indicating clustering around education, ethics, and digital health themes. Bibliographic coupling further demonstrates that the literature is thematically fragmented yet increasingly interconnected.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that AI literacy in health services is an emerging but rapidly advancing research area, emphasizing education, ethics, and clinical practice, and underscores the need for further interdisciplinary research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali GÖDE (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: