ArticleJAMA network open2025
Ethics in Patient Preferences for Artificial Intelligence-Drafted Responses to Electronic Messages.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder experience with artificial intelligence in healthcare: a bibliometric study of satisfaction, trust, acceptance, and patient engagement.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Are Arthroplasty Patients Ready for Artificial Intelligence-Integrated Care?Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- The use of generative AI tools among individuals with cancer and their caregivers: a cross-sectional study of awareness, attitudes, and experiences.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Ethical Considerations on Artificial Intelligence, Health and Health Care. All That Glisters Is Not Gold.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Patient Perspectives on AI-Drafted Electronic Portal Messages.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Physician-Patient Communication in Chinese Tertiary Hospitals From the Perspectives of Hospital-Based Physicians and Patient Relations Coordinators: Qualitative Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Defining physician-AI collaboration in pulmonary and critical care medicine: concepts and illustrative examples for clinical reasoning.ATS scholar · 2026Article
- A scoping review of studies on secure messaging through patient portals: persistent challenges and potential solutions.npj health systems · 2026Article
- A qualitative interview study investigating patient, health professional, and developer perspectives on real-world implementation of patient-centered AI systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Tracing the Pen: Electronic Health Records Amid the Rise of Generative AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in primary care: innovation at a crossroads.The Lancet. Primary care · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Decision-Making for End-Stage Organ Failure: Opportunities and Ethical Concerns.Artificial organs · 2026Review
- Benchmarking public large language model responses to patient-facing inflammatory bowel disease questions: informational quality, transparency proxies, and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Listening to Patients' Voices on the Use of AI in Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- What patients want from healthcare chatbots: insights from a mixed-methods study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- A systematic review of early evidence on generative AI for drafting responses to patient messages.npj health systems · 2025Article
- From E-Patients to AI Patients: The Tidal Wave Empowering Patients, Redefining Clinical Relationships, and Transforming Care.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The rise of patient messages sent to clinicians via a patient portal has directly led to physician burnout and dissatisfaction, prompting uptake of artificial intelligence (AI) to alleviate this burden. It is important to understand patient preferences around AI in patient-clinician communication as ethical guidelines on appropriate use and disclosure (patient notification of AI use) are developed. Objective: To analyze patient preferences regarding use of AI in electronic messages. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study was conducted within the Duke University Health System's patient advisory committee, consisting of individuals 18 years or older who participate in periodic surveys to inform health system patient care practices. Multiple surveys were administered to test the impact of different factors, including response author, disclosure (AI, human, or none), and seriousness of the topic. A follow-up survey assessed preferred disclosure verbiage. Surveys were administered from October 31 to December 11, 2023. Exposure: Multiple surveys. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants rated their overall satisfaction, usefulness of the information, and perceived level of care on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Of the 2511 members surveyed, 1455 (57.9%) responded, with respondents being older (median age, 57 [IQR, 49-70] vs 53 [IQR, 41-62] years), more educated (872 of 1083 [80.5%] vs 319 of 440 [72.5%] with a college or graduate degree), and predominantly female (921 [63.3%]). Participants preferred AI- compared with human-drafted responses, with a mean difference for satisfaction of -0.30 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.23) points, usefulness of -0.28 (95% CI, -0.34 to -0.22) points, and perception they were cared for of -0.43 (95% CI, -0.50 to -0.37) points. Participants tended to have higher satisfaction with a human disclosure over AI disclosure, with a mean difference of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05-0.22) points, and with no disclosure over AI authorship disclosure, with a mean difference of 0.09 (95% CI, 0.01-0.17) points. Regardless of author or disclosure type, more than 75% of respondents were satisfied (agree or strongly agree) with the response. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, participants expressed a mild preference for messages written by AI but had a slightly decreased satisfaction when told AI was involved. Patient experience must be considered along with ethical implementation of AI. Although AI disclosure may slightly reduce satisfaction, disclosure should be maintained to uphold patient autonomy and empowerment.
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.