This study explored the integration of technology into teaching practices by examining how faculty members at a newly established university in Saudi Arabia utilized the Blackboard learning system. Specifically, it investigated the use of multimedia e-learning tools by male and female faculty members during regular teaching periods following the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey questionnaire was developed using a 5-point Likert scale. The instrument covered demographic information, content creation, assessment methods, utility tools, and factors influencing Blackboard usage. Upon receiving approval, the survey was distributed via email to all faculty members across nine colleges. A total of 198 responses were collected and analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. The findings indicated that gender had little to no statistically significant impact on the use of key Blackboard tools—such as content creation features (e.g., files, folders, items), assessment tools (e.g., tests, assignments), and utilities (e.g., virtual classes, email)—at the college level. However, when analyzed at the university level, some tools’ usage showed statistically significant gender differences at the α = 0.05 level. Furthermore, both male and female faculty members cited convenience, flexibility in uploading materials, access to virtual classes, and remote assessment of students as primary factors influencing their e-learning preferences.

Labor pain is often managed with pharmacological interventions, which can lead to several adverse effects for mothers and neonates. Consequently, non-pharmacological interventions are gaining attention as safer alternatives for pain relief during labor. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods in reducing labor pain. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases up to September 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-pharmacological interventions for labor pain relief were included, with pain intensity during cervical dilatation as the primary outcome. Data synthesis was performed using RevMan (V5.3). Seventy-seven RCTs involving 8,805 pregnant women were analyzed. The results indicated that non-pharmacological methods significantly reduced pain at 3-4 cm cervical dilatation compared to control groups (M.D. = -1.63, 95% C.I. [-2.05 to -1.21], P < 0.0001). Notably, subgroup analysis showed that body acupressure (M.D. = -2.08, 95% C.I. [-2.76 to -1.40], P < 0.0001) and foot reflexology (M.D. = -2.48, 95% C.I. [-2.84 to -2.13], P < 0.0001) were particularly effective. High heterogeneity (I² > 90%) was noted, partly reflecting differences in intervention types, protocols, and participant characteristics. Overall, non-pharmacological interventions provided substantial relief in labor pain compared to standard care, suggesting their potential utility in obstetric practice. Further large-scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Background: The double-J (DJ) stent is an indispensable device in urology, a rudimentary part of numerous procedures and a management tool for patients with ureteric calculi. However, some issues connected to its usage still arise. The issues include patient discomfort, urinary symptoms (such as urgency and frequency), hematuria, infection, stent migration, and encrustation with prolonged indwelling time. Aim: The study aims to determine whether awhether a nursing instructional module has a positive effect on the acute side effects of DJ stent removal for ureterolithiasis patients. Methods: The study employed a quasi-experimental research design on 50 patients (25 in the study group, with a nursing instuctional model, and 25 in the control group, with support as usual). The patient’s knowledge about ureteral stones, the ureteral DJ stent assessment chart and the Ureteral Stent Discomfort tools were used to measure the patient’s knowledge about ureteral stones and appraise the ureteral stent discomfort and acute side effects after removal in the two groups. Results: Most studied patients were males (64.0, 56.0%) and married (80.0, 76.0%). There was a 100% satisfactory knowledge level for the study group and highly statistically significant differences in all domains of the ureteral stent discomfort test of urinary symptoms among ureterolithiasis patients after the nursing instructional module implementation for the studied patients. Conclusion: Implementing the nursing instructional module effectively refined patients’ knowledge and reduced ureteral stent discomfort and acute side effects.

Background/Objectives: Medical chatbots are increasingly integrated into healthcare to facilitate patient communication, often under the assumption that they reduce stigma and foster the disclosure of sensitive information. However, empirical support for this effect remains inconsistent. Drawing on online disinhibition theory, this study introduces the concept of machine-mediated disinhibition (MMD) to examine whether chatbot consultations elicit greater disclosure than human-mediated or face-to-face interactions. Methods: A scenario-based, between-subjects experiment (n = 373) compared three modes: face-to-face, human-through-computer, and chatbot. Results: Results revealed no evidence of increased disinhibition in the chatbot condition. Conversely, participants were significantly less willing to disclose sensitive health information to chatbots than to humans. Conclusions: These findings suggest that in high-stakes healthcare contexts, trust-related concerns override disinhibition effects, leading to avoidance rather than openness. This study challenges the prevailing assumption that AI agents inherently facilitate disclosure and highlights the critical need for further research on trust in AI-mediated medical communication.

Background: Accurate dietary-intake assessment underpins nutrition research and clinical dietetics, yet self-report methods remain vulnerable to recall, portion-size and reporting error. Objective: This structured narrative review evaluates AI-enabled and sensor-supported dietary-assessment software, focusing on technical performance, measurement validity, user engagement, food-composition databases, cultural applicability and clinical readiness. Methods: Evidence was identified through searches of five electronic sources—PubMed (including MEDLINE-indexed records), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, IEEE Xplore and ScienceDirect—covering January 2020 to March 2025, and a complete rerun of the same five sources on 7 August 2026, supplemented by backward and forward citation tracking. The retained primary screening record comprised 1620 electronic-source records and 42 additional records (1662 before deduplication); 478 duplicates were removed, 1184 records were screened, 212 full texts were assessed and 15 sources were retained for the primary-phase qualitative synthesis. These figures are retained aggregate review-log totals and should not be interpreted as a fully reconstructable systematic-review audit trail. The 2026 update incorporated 18 publications: 10 from the January 2020–March 2025 historical interval through separate recovery/reassessment, and eight published after March 2025 through the 497-record update-specific screening stream, with retrieval phase reported separately from evidence role. The higher, moderate and limited/emerging within-map convergence descriptors summarise patterns in the purposively selected literature and do not represent exhaustive retrieval, formal certainty of evidence or reproducible screening. Results: Food recognition is most mature for visually distinct foods under controlled conditions. Portion-size estimation, nutrient quantification, mixed dishes, sustained engagement and culturally diverse foods remain less consistent. Selected systems show reasonable group-level energy and macronutrient agreement under defined conditions, whereas validation in free-living and clinical settings remains variable; a 2026 doubly labelled water study reported substantial underestimation and poor individual agreement in females with obesity. Conclusions: Current tools may support self-monitoring, research screening and dietitian-assisted assessment, but stand-alone use for high-stakes therapeutic decisions requires independent, nutrient-specific validation in the target population.