ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Perspectives and Experiences With Large Language Models in Health Care: 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 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Pediatric Asthma Education Through Large Language Model Generation and Simplification: Randomized Double-Blind Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- 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
- Article
- Attitudes Toward Large Language Models in Health Care and Preferences for Their Adoption and Oversight Among Health Care Professionals: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Novelty to necessity: large language models in clinical practice-a call to action for physicians.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating the First CE-Marked LLM-Based Chatbot for Evidence-Based Neurology.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Clinician Use of a General-Purpose Large Language Model in Hospital Medicine: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Health equity and public acceptance of large language models in healthcare in China: A national population-based survey.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of the ATRAI Questionnaire to Assess Attitudes Toward Large Language Models in Clinical Setting (ATRAI-LLM).European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
- Acceptable accuracy for medical AI: a survey of physicians and the general population in Sweden.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Assessment of Physician Preferences for Large Language Model-Generated Responses Across Geographic Regions and Clinical Experience Levels: Preliminary Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Patient Health Communication for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Pilot Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Large language models in emergency and critical care medicine: a comprehensive review of applications, challenges, and future directions.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Article
- The double-edged sword of generative AI in dermatology: a multi-component cross-sectional study on physician burnout, patient satisfaction, and communication quality.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medicine.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- How Accurate Is AI? A Critical Evaluation of Commonly Used Large Language Models in Responding to Patient Concerns About Incidental Kidney Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are transforming how data is used, including within the health care sector. However, frameworks including the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology highlight the importance of understanding the factors that influence technology use for successful implementation.
objectiveThis study aimed to (1) investigate users' uptake, perceptions, and experiences regarding LLMs in health care and (2) contextualize survey responses by demographics and professional profiles.
methodsAn electronic survey was administered to elicit stakeholder perspectives of LLMs (health care providers and support functions), their experiences with LLMs, and their potential impact on functional roles. Survey domains included: demographics (6 questions), user experiences of LLMs (8 questions), motivations for using LLMs (6 questions), and perceived impact on functional roles (4 questions). The survey was launched electronically, targeting health care providers or support staff, health care students, and academics in health-related fields. Respondents were adults (>18 years) aware of LLMs.
resultsResponses were received from 1083 individuals, of which 845 were analyzable. Of the 845 respondents, 221 had yet to use an LLM. Nonusers were more likely to be health care workers (P<.001), older (P<.001), and female (P<.01). Users primarily adopted LLMs for speed, convenience, and productivity. While 75% (470/624) agreed that the user experience was positive, 46% (294/624) found the generated content unhelpful. Regression analysis showed that the experience with LLMs is more likely to be positive if the user is male (odds ratio [OR] 1.62, CI 1.06-2.48), and increasing age was associated with a reduced likelihood of reporting LLM output as useful (OR 0.98, CI 0.96-0.99). Nonusers compared to LLM users were less likely to report LLMs meeting unmet needs (45%, 99/221 vs 65%, 407/624; OR 0.48, CI 0.35-0.65), and males were more likely to report that LLMs do address unmet needs (OR 1.64, CI 1.18-2.28). Furthermore, nonusers compared to LLM users were less likely to agree that LLMs will improve functional roles (63%, 140/221 vs 75%, 469/624; OR 0.60, CI 0.43-0.85). Free-text opinions highlighted concerns regarding autonomy, outperformance, and reduced demand for care. Respondents also predicted changes to human interactions, including fewer but higher quality interactions and a change in consumer needs as LLMs become more common, which would require provider adaptation.
conclusionsDespite the reported benefits of LLMs, nonusers-primarily health care workers, older individuals, and females-appeared more hesitant to adopt these tools. These findings underscore the need for targeted education and support to address adoption barriers and ensure the successful integration of LLMs in health care. Anticipated role changes, evolving human interactions, and the risk of the digital divide further emphasize the need for careful implementation and ongoing evaluation of LLMs in health care to ensure equity and sustainability.
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.