ReviewEuropean journal of public health2025
The use of artificial intelligence in healthcare as perceived by the citizens and patients: a narrative review of the literature.
Review in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growth of scientific literature on large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, anticipates their central role for accessing health information but poses potential risks, including the false belief that artificial intelligence (AI) could replace doctors in providing reliable information. Our study, part of the Slow AI project launched in partnership with the Slow Medicine ETS Association, reviewed the literature on ChatGPT use by the public, analyzing citizens' and patients' perceptions of using AI for health-related questions, identifying key benefits and concerns, and providing recommendations for the safe and effective use of LLMs. We conducted a narrative review following PRISMA guidelines, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies, selected through a search of the PubMed database. Data were extracted and analyzed using a predefined form. Out of 388 records, 120 studies were included, primarily from the USA (65), Europe (19), and Asia (15). Most studies focused on general medicine (37), with patients (57) being the main participants. Key findings include that LLMs improve access to health information, aiding diagnostic accuracy and patient understanding. However, risks exist, such as inaccurate or outdated information, lack of empathy, and privacy concerns. These challenges highlight the need for reliable AI training with real-world data and clinician oversight to mitigate risks. Lastly, while LLMs can improve communication, they should complement, not replace human interaction. LLMs in healthcare offer great potential but also present risks. Safeguards and clinician oversight are crucial to preserve patient safety and doctor-patient relationship.
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.