Background/objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) is embedded in healthcare education and practice. Pre‐service training on AI technologies allows health professionals to identify the best use of AI. This systematic review explores health students'/academics' perception of using AI in their practice. The authors aimed to identify any gaps in the health curriculum related to AI training that may need to be addressed.Methods: Medline (EBSCO), Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched using key terms including health students, health academics, AI, and higher education. Quantitative and qualitative studies published in the last seven years were reviewed. JBI SUMARI was used to facilitate study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of included articles. Thematic and descriptive data analyses were used to retrieve data. This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023448005).Results: Twelve studies, including seven quantitative and five mixed‐method studies, provided novel insights into health students’ perceptions of using AI in health education or practice. Quantitative findings reported significant variations in attitudes and literacy levels regarding AI across different disciplines and demographics. Senior students and those with doctoral degrees exhibited more favourable outlooks compared with their less experienced counterparts (p < 0.001). Students intending to pursue careers in research demonstrated greater optimism towards AI adoption than those planning to work in clinical practice (p < 0.001). A review of qualitative data, particularly on nursing discipline, revealed four themes, including limited AI literacy, replacement of health specialties with AI vs. providing support, optimism vs. cautiousness about using AI in practice, and ethical concerns. Only one study explored health academics’ experiences with AI in education, highlighting a gap in the current literature. This is while that students consistently agreed that universities are the best setting for learning about AI technologies in healthcare highlighting the need for embedding AI training into the health curricula to prepare future healthcare professionals.Conclusion and implications for nursing/health policy: This systematic review recommends embedding AI training in health curriculum, offering direction for health education providers and curriculum developers responsible for preparing next‐generation healthcare professionals, particularly nurses. Ethical considerations and the future role of AI in healthcare practice remain central concerns to be addressed in both curriculum development and future research. Further research is required to address the implication and cost‐effectiveness of embedding AI training into health curricula.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Acupuncture-point stimulation (APS) in postoperative pain control compared with sham/placebo acupuncture or standard treatments (usual care or no treatment). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Meta-analysis results indicated that APS interventions improved VAS scores significantly and also reduced total morphine consumption. No serious APS-related adverse effects (AEs) were reported. There is Level I evidence for the effectiveness of body points plaster therapy and Level II evidence for body points electroacupuncture (EA), body points acupressure, body points APS for abdominal surgery patients, auricular points seed embedding, manual auricular acupuncture, and auricular EA. We obtained Level III evidence for body points APS in patients who underwent cardiac surgery and cesarean section and for auricular-point stimulation in patients who underwent abdominal surgery. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that APS is an effective postoperative pain therapy in surgical patients, although the evidence does support the conclusion that APS can reduce analgesic requirements without AEs. The best level of evidence was not adequate in most subgroups. Some limitations of this study may have affected the results, possibly leading to an overestimation of APS effects.

Objectives This umbrella review aimed to identify the current evidence on health education-related interventions for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM); identify the educational content, delivery methods, intensity, duration and setting required. The purpose was to provide recommendations for educational interventions for high-risk patients with both ACS and T2DM. Design Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Setting Inpatient and postdischarge settings. Participants Patients with ACS and T2DM. Data sources CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, Journals@Ovid, EMBase, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science databases from January 2000 through May 2016. Outcomes measures Clinical outcomes (such as glycated haemoglobin), behavioural outcomes (such as smoking), psychosocial outcomes (such as anxiety) and medical service use. Results Fifty-one eligible reviews (15 for ACS and 36 for T2DM) consisting of 1324 relevant studies involving 2 88 057 patients (15 papers did not provide the total sample); 30 (58.8%) reviews were rated as high quality. Nurses only and multidisciplinary teams were the most frequent professionals to provide education, and most educational interventions were delivered postdischarge. Face-to-face sessions were the most common delivery formats, and many education sessions were also delivered by telephone or via web contact. The frequency of educational sessions was weekly or monthly, and an average of 3.7 topics was covered per education session. Psychoeducational interventions were generally effective at reducing smoking and admissions for patients with ACS. Culturally appropriate health education, self-management educational interventions, group medical visits and psychoeducational interventions were generally effective for patients with T2DM. Conclusions Results indicate that there is a body of current evidence about the efficacy of health education, its content and delivery methods for patients with ACS or T2DM. These results provide recommendations about the content for, and approach to, health education intervention for these high-risk patients.