ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
Public comfort with the use of ChatGPT and expectations for healthcare.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in public health: a systematic review on technological efficacy, ethical dilemmas, and governance pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Hospital Human Resource Managers' Perspectives on Organizational Readiness for Generative AI Skills: Qualitative Descriptive Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Utility of Large Language Models for Congenital Microtia Reconstruction Education: Comparison of the Performance of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Understanding Public Awareness, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceptions About ChatGPT in Saudi Arabia: A Road Map for Digital Health.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Platform shift in mental health support among undergraduates: from campus counselors to GenAI-based consultation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Physician versus patient use of AI for diabetes prevention: public perceptions and comfort levels.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Community perspectives on health AI: hopes, concerns and implications for health systems and trustworthy AI.AI and ethics · 2026Article
- Mapping Clinical Intent in Internet Hospitals: Identifying and Profiling Patient Demand via Natural Language Processing.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Preoperative Patient Education in Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Comparative Study of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2025Article
- Expectations of healthcare AI and the role of trust: understanding patient views on how AI will impact cost, access, and patient-provider relationships.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals and the public sentiment analysis of ChatGPT in clinical practice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Trust in large language model-based solutions in healthcare among people with and without diabetes: a cross-sectional survey from the Health in Central Denmark cohort.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Large language models in oncology: a review.BMJ oncology · 2025Review
- Large language models in biomedicine and health: current research landscape and future directions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine whether comfort with the use of ChatGPT in society differs from comfort with other uses of AI in society and to identify whether this comfort and other patient characteristics such as trust, privacy concerns, respect, and tech-savviness are associated with expected benefit of the use of ChatGPT for improving health. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed an original survey of U.S. adults using the NORC AmeriSpeak Panel (n = 1787). We conducted paired t-tests to assess differences in comfort with AI applications. We conducted weighted univariable regression and 2 weighted logistic regression models to identify predictors of expected benefit with and without accounting for trust in the health system.
resultsComfort with the use of ChatGPT in society is relatively low and different from other, common uses of AI. Comfort was highly associated with expecting benefit. Other statistically significant factors in multivariable analysis (not including system trust) included feeling respected and low privacy concerns. Females, younger adults, and those with higher levels of education were less likely to expect benefits in models with and without system trust, which was positively associated with expecting benefits (P = 1.6 × 10-11). Tech-savviness was not associated with the outcome. DISCUSSION: Understanding the impact of large language models (LLMs) from the patient perspective is critical to ensuring that expectations align with performance as a form of calibrated trust that acknowledges the dynamic nature of trust.
conclusionIncluding measures of system trust in evaluating LLMs could capture a range of issues critical for ensuring patient acceptance of this technological innovation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.