ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Online Health Information-Seeking in the Era of Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.
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 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Relation Between eHealth Literacy and Online Health Information-Seeking Behavior: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Trust and Technology Acceptance: Comparing Traditional Search Engines and Artificial Intelligence for Colorectal Cancer Information Seeking.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- Online health information-seeking behavior during the preoperative period among patients with pancreatic tumors and caregivers in China: A qualitative study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of artificial intelligence as a patient education tool in paediatric care: a cross-sectional comparative study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots by Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients: A Descriptive Phenomenological Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- AI Use for Mental Health Information and Professional Psychological Help-Seeking Intentions Among Saudi Women: A Cross-Sectional Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Consumer and Patient Health Information Seeking With Generative AI Tools: Scoping Review of Facilitators and Barriers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Can Direct Patients Toward a Complaint-specific Musculoskeletal Provider.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Real-world use of large language models for mental health in 2024.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond Explainability: The Trust Paradox of Conversational Artificial Intelligence in Endodontics.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Understanding of Preeclampsia Risk Factors in Large Language Models Compared with a Validated Competing-Risks Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Conversational Artificial Intelligence as a Source of Oral Health Information: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Romanian Population.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Channel Effects on Online Health Information Seeking in the Age of AI: An Extension of the CMIS Framework.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Do large language models differ in their pharmacology-related response quality for oral and maxillofacial surgery? a blinded expert benchmark study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Gut Instincts, Machine Decisions: Evaluating AI Accuracy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Navigating Diabetes Management in the Digital Era: Scoping Review of Online Health Information-Seeking Behavior.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Substance-induced manic psychosis in which delusions were corroborated by a chatbot - case report.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Accuracy and empathy of AI-based conversational chatbots in response to temporomandibular dysfunction related queries.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Differences in Safety Risks Across Languages in Health-Relevant Queries: Vulnerability Analysis of Large Language Model Responses.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs large language model (LLM)-based chatbots such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) grow in popularity, it is essential to understand their role in delivering online health information compared to other resources. These chatbots often generate inaccurate content, posing potential safety risks. This motivates the need to examine how users perceive and act on health information provided by LLM-based chatbots.
objectiveThis study investigates the patterns, perceptions, and actions of users seeking health information online, including LLM-based chatbots. The relationships between online health information-seeking behaviors and important sociodemographic characteristics are examined as well.
methodsA web-based survey of crowd workers was conducted via Prolific. The questionnaire covered sociodemographic information, trust in health care providers, eHealth literacy, artificial intelligence (AI) attitudes, chronic health condition status, online health information source types, perceptions, and actions, such as cross-checking or adherence. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were applied.
resultsMost participants consulted search engines (291/297, 98%) and health-related websites (203/297, 68.4%) for their health information, while 21.2% (63/297) used LLM-based chatbots, with ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot being the most popular. Most participants (268/297, 90.2%) sought information on health conditions, with fewer seeking advice on medication (179/297, 60.3%), treatments (137/297, 46.1%), and self-diagnosis (62/297, 23.2%). Perceived information quality and trust varied little across source types. The preferred source for validating information from the internet was consulting health care professionals (40/132, 30.3%), while only a very small percentage of participants (5/214, 2.3%) consulted AI tools to cross-check information from search engines and health-related websites. For information obtained from LLM-based chatbots, 19.4% (12/63) of participants cross-checked the information, while 48.4% (30/63) of participants followed the advice. Both of these rates were lower than information from search engines, health-related websites, forums, or social media. Furthermore, use of LLM-based chatbots for health information was negatively correlated with age (ρ=-0.16, P=.006). In contrast, attitudes surrounding AI for medicine had significant positive correlations with the number of source types consulted for health advice (ρ=0.14, P=.01), use of LLM-based chatbots for health information (ρ=0.31, P<.001), and number of health topics searched (ρ=0.19, P<.001).
conclusionsAlthough traditional online sources remain dominant, LLM-based chatbots are emerging as a resource for health information for some users, specifically those who are younger and have a higher trust in AI. The perceived quality and trustworthiness of health information varied little across source types. However, the adherence to health information from LLM-based chatbots seemed more cautious compared to search engines or health-related websites. As LLMs continue to evolve, enhancing their accuracy and transparency will be essential in mitigating any potential risks by supporting responsible information-seeking while maximizing the potential of AI in health contexts.
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.