ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Predicting the Intention to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence for Health Information: Comparative Survey Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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.
- Consumer and Patient Health Information Seeking With Generative AI Tools: Scoping Review of Facilitators and Barriers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- From Static Outputs to Living Evidence: AI for Integrated Knowledge Translation in Canadian Health Research.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- User Acceptance of Remote Care Assist, a Telecare System for Home Care Among Care and Nursing Staff: Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Why do I use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to seek health information? A perceptual perspective of GenAI users.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Acceptance of generative AI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians and patients and its ethical determinants: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Empowerment or disempowerment? How generative AI consultation shapes the health decision-making among the new generation of older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Generative AI use and social disparities in pediatric rehabilitation: a cross-sectional study of ChatGPT use among parents of children with speech and language disorders in Türkiye.Frontiers in public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT is rapidly transforming how people access information online. In the health context, generative AI is seen as a potentially disruptive information source due to its low entry barriers, conversational style, and ability to tailor content to users' needs. However, little is known about whether and how individuals use generative AI for health purposes, and which groups may benefit or be left behind, raising important questions of digital health equity. Objective: This study aimed to assess the current relevance of generative AI as a health information source and to identify key factors predicting individuals' intention to use it. We applied the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2, focusing on 6 core predictors: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, habit, and hedonic motivation. In addition, we extended the model by including health literacy and health status. A cross-national design enabled comparison across 4 European countries. Methods: A representative online survey was conducted in September 2024 with 1990 participants aged 16 to 74 years from Austria (n=502), Denmark (n=507), France (n=498), and Serbia (n=483). Structural equation modeling with metric measurement invariance was used to test associations across countries. Results: Usage of generative AI for health information was still limited: only 39.5% of respondents reported having used it at least rarely. Generative AI ranked last among all measured health information sources (mean 2.08, SD 1.66); instead, medical experts (mean 4.77, SD 1.70) and online search engines (mean 4.57, SD 1.88) are still the most frequently used health information sources. Despite this, performance expectancy (b range=0.44-0.53; all P<.001), habit (b range=0.28-0.32; all P<.001), and hedonic motivation (b range=0.22-0.45; all P<.001) consistently predicted behavioral intention in all countries. Facilitating conditions also showed small but significant effects (b range=0.12-0.24; all P<.01). In contrast, effort expectancy, social influence, health literacy, and health status were unrelated to intention in all countries, with one marginal exception (France: health status, b=-0.09; P=.007). Model fit was good (comparative fit index=0.95; root mean square error of approximation=0.03), and metric invariance was confirmed. Conclusions: Generative AI use for health information is currently driven by early adopters-those who find it useful, easy to integrate, enjoyable, and have the necessary skills and infrastructure to do so. Cross-national consistency suggests a shared adoption pattern across Europe. To promote equitable adoption, communication efforts should focus on usefulness, convenience, and enjoyment, while ensuring digital access and safeguards for vulnerable users.
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.