ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Users' Perceptions and Trust in AI in Direct-to-Consumer mHealth: Qualitative Interview Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Support for a Technology-Enhanced Suicide Prevention Intervention for College Students: Mixed Methods Preimplementation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Perceived Sensitivity of Sensor-Based Digital Health Data: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Maternal mHealth usability strengthened by trust, governance, and navigation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- AI competence and sentiment: a mixed-methods study of attitudes and open-ended reflections.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Trust, perceived accuracy, and continued use of patient-facing symptom monitoring applications: Cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing use of direct-to-consumer artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled mobile health (AI-mHealth) apps presents an opportunity for more effective health management and monitoring and expanded mobile health (mHealth) capabilities. However, AI's early developmental stage has prompted concerns related to trust, privacy, informed consent, and bias, among others. While some of these concerns have been explored in early stakeholder research related to AI-mHealth, the broader landscape of considerations that hold ethical significance to users remains underexplored.
objectiveOur aim was to document and explore the perspectives of individuals who reported previous experience using mHealth apps and their attitudes and ethically salient considerations regarding direct-to-consumer AI-mHealth apps.
methodsAs part of a larger study, we conducted semistructured interviews via Zoom with self-reported users of mHealth apps (N=21). Interviews consisted of a series of open-ended questions concerning participants' experiences, attitudes, and values relating to AI-mHealth apps and were conducted until topic saturation was reached. We collaboratively reviewed the interview transcripts and developed a codebook consisting of 37 codes describing recurring or otherwise noteworthy sentiments that inductively arose from the data. A single coder coded all transcripts, and the entire team contributed to conventional qualitative analysis.
resultsOur qualitative analysis yielded 3 major categories and 9 subcategories encompassing participants' perspectives. Participants described attitudes toward the impact of AI-mHealth on users' health and personal data (ie, influences on health awareness and management, value for mental vs physical health use cases, and the inevitability of data sharing), influences on their trust in AI-mHealth (ie, endorsements and guidance from health professionals or health or regulatory organizations, attitudes toward technology companies, and reasonable but not necessarily explainable output), and their preferences relating to the amount and type of information that is shared by AI-mHealth apps (ie, the types of data that are collected, future uses of user data, and the accessibility of information).
conclusionsThis paper provides additional context relating to a number of concerns previously posited or identified in the AI-mHealth literature, including trust, explainability, and information sharing, and revealed additional considerations that have not been previously documented, that is, users' differentiation between the value of AI-mHealth for physical and mental health use cases and their willingness to extend empathy to nonexplainable AI. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to apply an open-ended, qualitative descriptive approach to explore the perspectives of end users of direct-to-consumer AI-mHealth apps.
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.