Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40036944›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Expectations of healthcare AI and the role of trust: understanding patient views on how AI will impact cost, access, and patient-provider relationships.

Paige Nong, Molin Ji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Diversity, equity, and inclusion matter for biomedical and health informatics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paige NongDivision of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2849-9005
Molin JiDivision of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States.

Funding

Public trust of artificial intelligence in the precision CDS health ecosystem - Administrative SupplementR01EB030492 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PLATT, JODYN ELIZABETH · 2021 to 2024
$3.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS 5R01EB030492-04NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB030492NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAlthough efforts to effectively govern AI continue to develop, relatively little work has been done to systematically measure and include patient perspectives or expectations of AI in governance. This analysis is designed to understand patient expectations of healthcare AI. MATERIALS AND

methodsCross-sectional nationally representative survey of US adults fielded from June to July of 2023. A total of 2039 participants completed the survey and cross-sectional population weights were applied to produce national estimates.

resultsAmong US adults, 19.55% expect AI to improve their relationship with their doctor, while 19.4% expect it to increase affordability and 30.28% expect it will improve their access to care. Trust in providers and the healthcare system are positively associated with expectations of AI when controlling for demographic factors, general attitudes toward technology, and other healthcare-related variables. DISCUSSION: US adults generally have low expectations of benefit from AI in healthcare, but those with higher trust in their providers and health systems are more likely to expect to benefit from AI.

conclusionTrust and provider relationships should be key considerations for health systems as they create their AI governance processes and communicate with patients about AI tools. Evidence of patient benefit should be prioritized to preserve or promote trust.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth Services AccessibilityPhysician-Patient RelationsTrustAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adultaccess to careAI governanceartificial intelligencepatient-provider relationshipspatient trust

Identifiers

PMID40036944
PMCPMC12012342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.