浙江省高校学生AI诊断技术焦虑的影响因素与相关性研究
A Study on the Influencing Factors and Correlations of Anxiety about AI Diagnostic Technology among College Students in Zhejiang Province
DOI: 10.12677/ns.2026.158259, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 刘 祥, 史晓普, 王 瑞, 杨 磊*:湖州学院生命健康学院(体育部),浙江 湖州;刘红梅:湖州学院附属南太湖医院护理部,浙江 湖州
关键词: 技术焦虑人工智能诊断高校学生护理教育影响因素Technology Anxiety AI Diagnostics University Students Nursing Education Influencing Factors
摘要: 目的:调查高校学生人工智能(Artificial Intelligence)诊断技术焦虑现状及影响因素,为临床护理工作中开展前瞻性健康指导、改善患者就医体验提供参考。方法:采用便利抽样法,对浙江省1416名高校学生进行问卷调查,使用修订的AI诊断技术焦虑量表(含效能失调、风险感知、伦理隐私3维度,13条目,Cronbach’s α = 0.932)及一般资料问卷。采用多元线性回归分析影响因素。结果:学生AI诊断技术焦虑处于中等水平(总分3.44 ± 0.89),伦理隐私维度得分最高。回归分析显示,主动使用意愿(β = −0.203)、政策了解程度(β = −0.170)、可靠性评价(β = −0.139)是保护因素;年龄(β = 0.168)、性别(β = 0.126)、对传统医疗信任(β = 0.110)、医-AI冲突决策偏好(β = 0.126)、过度依赖担忧(β = 0.121)、标注“辅助工具”态度(β = 0.125)是危险因素(均P < 0.05),模型解释总变异48.2%。结论:高校学生AI诊断焦虑受认知、行为及专业背景多重影响。护理教育应重点强化数据安全与伦理素养,通过提升技术体验与政策认知,降低学生技术焦虑,提升其对智能技术的理性接纳度。
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the current situation and influencing factors of artificial intelligence diagnostic technology anxiety among university students, providing references for proactive health guidance and improving patient medical experiences in clinical nursing. Methods: Using convenience sampling, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 1416 university students in Zhejiang Province. The revised AI Diagnostic Technology Anxiety Scale (including three dimensions: efficacy dysfunction, risk perception, ethical privacy, 13 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.932) and a general information questionnaire were used. Multiple linear regression was employed to analyze influencing factors. Results: Students’ AI diagnostic technology anxiety was at a moderate level (total score 3.44 ± 0.89), with the ethical privacy dimension scoring the highest. Regression analysis showed that willingness to actively use AI (β = −0.203), level of policy understanding (β = −0.170), and reliability evaluation (β = −0.139) were protective factors; age (β = 0.168), gender (β = 0.126), trust in traditional medicine (β = 0.110), preference for physician-AI conflicting decisions (β = 0.126), worry about over-reliance (β = 0.121), and labeling AI as an “assistive tool” (β = 0.125) were risk factors (all P < 0.05). The model explained 48.2% of the total variance. Conclusion: University students’ AI diagnostic anxiety is influenced by multiple factors, including cognition, behavior, and professional background. Nursing education should focus on strengthening data security and ethical literacy, and by enhancing technical experience and policy awareness, reduce students’ technology anxiety and improve their rational acceptance of intelligent technology.
文章引用:刘祥, 史晓普, 刘红梅, 王瑞, 杨磊. 浙江省高校学生AI诊断技术焦虑的影响因素与相关性研究[J]. 护理学, 2026, 15(8): 169-178. https://doi.org/10.12677/ns.2026.158259

参考文献

[1] Hassanein, S., El Arab, R.A., Abdrbo, A., Abu-Mahfouz, M.S., Gaballah, M.K.F., Seweid, M.M., et al. (2025) Artificial Intelligence in Nursing: An Integrative Review of Clinical and Operational Impacts. Frontiers in Digital Health, 7, Article 1552372.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1552372
[2] 罗杰, 艾山木, 辜锐, 等. 大语言模型在预检分诊运用对成人预检分诊正确率的影响[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2025, 34(7): 987-991.
[3] 范一丁, 余筱卉, 师庆科, 等. AI识别技术与“互联网+”融合的智慧护理服务创新模式[J]. 中国数字医学, 2025, 20(11): 103-108.
[4] 陈沛芹, 陈瑜. 人工智能焦虑对生成式人工智能采纳行为的影响机理——基于技术接受模型的实证研究[J]. 新媒体与社会, 2025(6): 101-118, 480-481.
[5] 王凤霞, 刘梦, 李金琰, 等. 护理本科生人工智能焦虑现状及影响因素分析[J]. 护理学杂志, 2026, 41(7): 87-90.
[6] Ergin, E., Karaarslan, D., Şahan, S. and Bingöl, Ü. (2023) Can Artificial Intelligence and Robotic Nurses Replace Operating Room Nurses? The Quasi-Experimental Research. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 17, 1847-1855.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01592-0
[7] Luo, J., Peng, Q., Cao, H., Li, W. and Tan, S. (2025) Medical Undergraduate Students’ Readiness and Anxiety toward Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Medical Education, 26, Article No. 44.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-08388-w
[8] Osiceanu, M. (2015) Psychological Implications of Modern Technologies: “Technofobia” versus “Technophilia”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1137-1144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.229
[9] Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[10] 孙尔鸿, 高宇, 叶旭春. 技术焦虑量表的汉化及其在老年群体中的信效度检验[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(3): 380-384.
[11] Khasawneh, O.Y. (2018) Technophobia: Examining Its Hidden Factors and Defining It. Technology in Society, 54, 93-100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008
[12] 胡文轩, 张木雨, 司广森, 等. 数据透明度对患者医疗生成式人工智能使用意愿的“双刃剑”影响研究[J/OL]. 系统管理学报: 1-18.
https://link.cnki.net/urlid/31.1977.n.20260310.1738.002, 2026-05-07.
[13] 莫琳芳, 李喆, 甘辉亮, 等. 全球视野下医疗人工智能中患者隐私和数据安全: 焦点与策略[J]. 海军军医大学学报, 2025, 46(8): 989-999.
[14] 练璇, 于颖, 叶萌, 等. 大语言模型在护理教育中应用的伦理挑战与应对路径[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(2): 165-170.
[15] 王昱洲, 廖新媛. 人机耦合: 一种解决医疗人工智能信任问题的方案[J]. 自然辩证法通讯, 2025, 47(9): 1-9.
[16] 郝文睿, 张沛, 孙震, 等. 医生使用智能语音录入系统意愿及影响因素研究[J]. 医院管理论坛, 2023, 40(5): 79-83.
[17] Foa, E.B. and McLean, C.P. (2016) The Efficacy of Exposure Therapy for Anxiety-Related Disorders and Its Underlying Mechanisms: The Case of OCD and PTSD. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093533
[18] 洪杰文, 常静宜. 透明即信任? 平台算法透明化实践的用户感知与信任悖论[J]. 新闻与写作, 2025(9): 31-45.
[19] 蔡唯. 应对人工智能的二元信任困境——基于自由裁量权视角[J]. 东北大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 27(4): 10-16.