Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116853›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Trust and Acceptance Challenges in the Adoption of AI Applications in Health Care: Quantitative Survey Analysis.

Janne Kauttonen, Rebekah Rousi, Ari Alamäki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. The benefits and future potential of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on mental health: a Delphi study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors.

Janne KauttonenDigital Transition and AI, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-5072
Rebekah RousiCommunication Studies, School of Marketing and Communication, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5771-3528
Ari AlamäkiDigital Transition and AI, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4525-8243

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has potential to transform health care, but its successful implementation depends on the trust and acceptance of consumers and patients. Understanding the factors that influence attitudes toward AI is crucial for effective adoption. Despite AI's growing integration into health care, consumer and patient acceptance remains a critical challenge. Research has largely focused on applications or attitudes, lacking a comprehensive analysis of how factors, such as demographics, personality traits, technology attitudes, and AI knowledge, affect and interact across different health care AI contexts.

objectiveWe aimed to investigate people's trust in and acceptance of AI across health care use cases and determine how context and perceived risk affect individuals' propensity to trust and accept AI in specific health care scenarios.

methodsWe collected and analyzed web-based survey data from 1100 Finnish participants, presenting them with 8 AI use cases in health care: 5 (62%) noninvasive applications (eg, activity monitoring and mental health support) and 3 (38%) physical interventions (eg, AI-controlled robotic surgery). Respondents evaluated intention to use, trust, and willingness to trade off personal data for these use cases. Gradient boosted tree regression models were trained to predict responses based on 33 demographic-, personality-, and technology-related variables. To interpret the results of our predictive models, we used the Shapley additive explanations method, a game theory-based approach for explaining the output of machine learning models. It quantifies the contribution of each feature to individual predictions, allowing us to determine the relative importance of various demographic-, personality-, and technology-related factors and their interactions in shaping participants' trust in and acceptance of AI in health care.

resultsConsumer attitudes toward technology, technology use, and personality traits were the primary drivers of trust and intention to use AI in health care. Use cases were ranked by acceptance, with noninvasive monitors being the most preferred. However, the specific use case had less impact in general than expected. Nonlinear dependencies were observed, including an inverted U-shaped pattern in positivity toward AI based on self-reported AI knowledge. Certain personality traits, such as being more disorganized and careless, were associated with more positive attitudes toward AI in health care. Women seemed more cautious about AI applications in health care than men.

conclusionsThe findings highlight the complex interplay of factors influencing trust and acceptance of AI in health care. Consumer trust and intention to use AI in health care are driven by technology attitudes and use rather than specific use cases. AI service providers should consider demographic factors, personality traits, and technology attitudes when designing and implementing AI systems in health care. The study demonstrates the potential of using predictive AI models as decision-making tools for implementing and interacting with clients in health care AI applications.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CareTrustAdultAgedFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAIartificial intelligencehealth care technologypredictive modelingtechnology adoptionuser acceptanceuser trust

Identifiers

PMID40116853
PMCPMC11971584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.