ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Exploring trust factors in AI-healthcare integration: a rapid review.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated With Professionals' Context-Specific Trust in AI-Based Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Unlocking AI Chatbot Potential in Healthcare: Trust-Enhanced DeLone & McLean IS Success Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This rapid review explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is integrated into healthcare and examines the factors influencing trust between users and AI systems. By systematically identifying trust-related determinants, this review provides actionable insights to support effective AI adoption in clinical settings. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL (Ebsco) using keywords related to AI, healthcare, and trust yielded 872 unique citations, of which 40 studies met the inclusion criteria after screening. Three core themes were identified. AI literacy highlights the importance of user understanding of AI inputs, processes, and outputs in fostering trust among patients and clinicians. AI psychology reflects demographic and experiential influences on trust, such as age, gender, and prior AI exposure. AI utility emphasizes perceived usefulness, system efficiency, and integration within clinical workflows. Additional considerations include anthropomorphism, privacy and security concerns, and trust-repair mechanisms following system errors, particularly in high-risk clinical contexts. Overall, this review advances the understanding of trustworthy AI in healthcare and offers guidance for future implementation strategies and policy development.
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.