Introduction: Limited health literacy and strong family involvement are both common among hemodialysis patients in Saudi Arabia, yet how each relates to kidney‐specific quality of life (KDCS), and what this implies for how dialysis units organize patient and family education, has not been examined. Decisions about education protocols, staff competencies, materials, timing, family inclusion, and quality monitoring are made by unit nurse managers, who currently lack local evidence to guide them. Aim: To examine the associations of health literacy and perceived social support with KDCS among hemodialysis patients in Hail, Saudi Arabia, and to identify what these associations imply for how nurse managers organize patient and family education in dialysis units. Methods: A cross‐sectional correlational design was employed with 215 patients recruited from two dialysis centers in Hail, Saudi Arabia. Health literacy, social support, and quality of life were measured using three validated Arabic‐language tools: the HLS‐EU‐Q47 (health literacy), the MSPSS (multidimensional social support), and the KDQOL–SF 1.3 (KDCS). Questionnaires were administered in a mixed mode: 81.9% (176/215) were interviewer‐administered following a standardized verbal protocol, and 18.1% were self‐completed with a researcher present. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Pearson correlations examined bivariate associations among the continuous scores. The primary inferential analysis was a multiple linear regression with continuous KDCS as the dependent variable and health literacy and social support as predictors, controlling for age and education. As a secondary, exploratory analysis, a chi‐square test examined the association between HLS‐EU‐Q47 health literacy categories and KDCS dichotomized at the sample mean. Results: We observed a pattern we descriptively term the “Support Paradox”: perceived family support was at the ceiling ( M = 6.99/7.0, SD = 0.06), yet showed no association with KDCS ( r = −0.09, p = 0.188; β = −0.08, p = 0.202). This null association may be explained by near‐ceiling family support scores and the resulting restricted variance, interviewer‐assisted administration (81.9% of surveys), and potential social desirability bias, and should be regarded as an observed pattern rather than evidence that family support is unrelated to quality of life. In the primary multiple linear regression model, health literacy was the only significant predictor (β = 0.19, p = 0.012), but the model explained less than 7% of KDCS variance ( R ² = 0.068, adjusted R ² = 0.050), indicating a statistically significant but clinically modest association; 93.2% of KDCS variance remained unexplained by the model. In the exploratory categorical analysis, 91.7% of participants had limited health literacy, and sufficient health literacy was associated with “Good” KDCS ( X ² = 22.12, p < 0.001, Cramér’s V = 0.32). At the unit level, limited health literacy was near‐universal (91.7%), and most participants (81.9%), although literate, opted for verbal administration because completing written material during dialysis was impractical. Conclusion: Health literacy was a statistically significant but small contributor to KDCS, and perceived family support, although at the ceiling, was unrelated to it. Nearly all patients (91.7%) had limited health literacy, and most (81.9%) opted for verbal rather than written administration during dialysis, indicating that the response lies at the level of how the unit organizes education rather than with individual patients. Implications for Nursing Management: The findings define three responsibilities for nurse managers in dialysis units: organizing health literacy interventions, supporting culturally responsive patient and family education, and improving the quality of education. Because limited health literacy was near‐universal, managers should adopt a universal‐precautions approach in which plain‐language, verbal, and visual education with teach‐back is the default for every patient, supported by staff training and a standardized unit education protocol. Because families are consistently present and highly involved, managers should build culturally responsive, family‐inclusive education workflows that use Arabic‐language, visually based materials reflecting local food, religious, and family practices, and that direct teach‐back to the patient first to preserve patient autonomy and self‐management. Managers should monitor education quality through documented teach‐back, comprehension audits, caregiver attendance, and periodic reassessment of health literacy and QoL. Given the small effect size observed, these measures are necessary foundations whose impact on QoL must be evaluated prospectively.

Introduction: This study explores how students develop, negotiate and represent their mental health alongside their professional identities. The aim is to understand how nursing students construct and negotiate their mental health identities in academic and clinical environments. Method: Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), this qualitative research employed nine nursing students enrolled in the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) programme at King Khalid University in Saudi Arabia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Arabic, the participants’ native language, and professionally translated to English for analysis. Interviews were analyzed using a six-stage IPA protocol and an integrated coding framework operationalizing concept from Social Identity Theory, Symbolic Interactionism, and Identity Negotiation Theory. Results: The data led to five themes: (1) Navigating the Stigma Boundary: The ‘tough nurse’ imperative, strategic silence or selective disclosure as identity management. (2) Developing the ‘Mental Health’ Label: Repertoires and levels of surveillance/monitoring. (3) The Clinical–Classroom Divide: Contexts affecting identity performance and role transitions. (4) Help-Seeking as Identity Betrayal: The cost to identity of seeking formal help and preference for informal support. (5) Reconciling Personal and Professional Identities: Future self-prototype construction, divergent personal–professional developments, and post-trauma story-telling. Conclusion: Nursing students’ mental health identities are socially constructed and strategically negotiated across contexts. This multi-theoretical model advances understanding beyond deficit-oriented frameworks, showing that help-seeking is limited by identity barriers.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is dramatically altering the healthcare landscape and will challenge and provide opportunities for nursing education in the future. The primary aim of this study was to assess the status of AI inclusion in nursing education and how it has been viewed as impacting nursing students, faculty, and clinical practices, while situating these developments within existing simulation‐based teaching modalities. A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and requirements outlined in the PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. A search of six databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE) was conducted to identify relevant articles. The articles selected for this study included only peer‐reviewed English‐language publications from 2019 to 2024. Twenty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising both AI‐focused educational interventions and traditional simulation‐based studies used as methodological and outcome benchmarks. Most studies included nursing students. Four themes emerged from the synthesis of the studies: the potential and limitations of AI in nursing education, simulation‐based modalities and methodological benchmarking in nursing education, students’ views and experiences with respect to a rapidly changing paradigm in nursing education, and the necessity of preparing nurses for the future. There are several positive aspects of AI technology that may enhance nursing learners’ experience and access to information, especially when integrated thoughtfully with established standardized patient and high‐fidelity simulation practices. However, numerous ethical concerns regarding the responsible use of these technologies must be addressed, and human oversight of AI use is required to address them. While many believe that the greatest importance of education is the development of clinical skills, preparing nurses to work as effective members of an interdisciplinary team remains paramount. Conclusion: Although the integration of AI technology may be beneficial in enhancing nursing education through increased learner engagement and simulated learning, ethical concerns and the lack of uniformity in the preparation of nursing faculty hinder the integration of these technologies. By comparing AI‐enhanced approaches with benchmark simulation studies, this review suggests that AI is most likely to function as an extension of existing simulation pedagogy rather than a replacement. Therefore, the future integration of AI technology should prioritize the provision of targeted faculty training, clearly defined ethical frameworks, and collaborative efforts among professionals to maximize the benefits of AI technology while maintaining the quality of clinical excellence.