Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40392584›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025

Users' Perceptions and Trust in AI in Direct-to-Consumer mHealth: Qualitative Interview Study.

Katie Ryan, Justin Hogg, Max Kasun, Jane Paik Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Katie RyanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1437-3126
Justin HoggDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-9329-606X
Max KasunDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6364-6234
Jane Paik KimDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1475-9822

Funding

Stakeholder Guidance to Anticipate and Address Ethical Challenges in Applications of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Algorithmic Medicine: a Novel Empirical ApproachR01TR003505 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI KIM, JANE PAIK · 2020 to 2023
$1.8M
NCATS NIH HHS R01 TR003505
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligencePerceptionTrustAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsQualitative ResearchTelemedicineartificial intelligenceend usersethicsmHealthmobile healthqualitative studysemistructured interviewstrust

Identifiers

PMID40392584
PMCPMC12134692

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.