ArticleBMC public health2025
AI chatbots as 'pocket doctors': intimate health support for young women in Lebanon.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Students' Perceptions and Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Mental Health: A Preliminary Study in Higher Education in Qatar.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Use of generative AI for health among urban youth in Pakistan: A mixed-methods study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- From promise to practice: artificial intelligence in mental health care in the MENA region.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn conservative societies such as Lebanon and the broader Middle East and North Africa region, gynecological and intimate health issues are heavily stigmatized, limiting young women's access to care due to fear of judgment, privacy concerns, and cultural taboos. These barriers often result in delayed diagnoses and poorer health outcomes. Large Language Models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, have emerged as digital tools offering anonymity, reduced embarrassment, and accessibility, potentially serving as discreet "pocket doctors" for sensitive health concerns. However, little is known about young women's perceptions and use of artificial intelligence for intimate health topics in such contexts.
methodsA cross-sectional quantitative study surveyed 525 female university students in Lebanon (ages 18-35) to assess their use, perceptions, drivers, and barriers related to artificial intelligence chatbots for intimate and general health concerns.
resultsThe study included 525 young Lebanese women with a mean age of 22.44 ± 3.74 years. Regarding AI chatbot use, the most common intimate health topics included menstrual problems (43.8%) and polycystic ovary syndrome (33.3%), while physical fitness (59.8%) and mental health (48.8%) were the predominant general health topics. The primary barriers to chatbot use were concerns about accuracy (85.5%) and lack of physical examination (85.3%), while key motivators included saving time (71.0%) and avoiding embarrassment (43.4%). Younger women were more likely to use artificial intelligence tools to avoid judgment and cost. Cluster analysis revealed distinct user profiles, including a super-user group with intensive engagement across sensitive health domains.
conclusionLarge language models serve as accessible, non-judgmental digital confidants for young Lebanese women's intimate health concerns, addressing socio-cultural stigma and healthcare system limitations. While promising, they should complement, not replace, professional care due to limitations in clinical reasoning, physical examination, and privacy concerns. Integrating artificial intelligence chatbots thoughtfully may enhance health information access and reduce barriers in stigmatized settings.
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.