Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41604597›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Predicting the Intention to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence for Health Information: Comparative Survey Study.

Jörg Matthes, Anne Reinhardt, Selma Hodzic, Jaroslava Kaňková, Alice Binder, Ljubisa Bojic, Helle Terkildsen Maindal, Corina Paraschiv, Knud Ryom

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Jörg MatthesDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Waehringer Street 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria, 43 14277493.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9408-955X
Anne ReinhardtDepartment of Media and Communication, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5231-0877
Selma HodzicDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Waehringer Street 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria, 43 14277493.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2538-0196
Jaroslava KaňkováDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Waehringer Street 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria, 43 14277493.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2364-844X
Alice BinderDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Waehringer Street 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria, 43 14277493.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-8614
Ljubisa BojicDigital Society Lab, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5371-7975
Helle Terkildsen MaindalDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0525-7254
Corina ParaschivLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Appliquée en Économie de la Santé (LIRAES), Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8762-9482
Knud RyomDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5947-3038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceGenerative Artificial IntelligenceIntentionAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAI adoptionartificial intelligencegenerative AIhealth information–seekingUnified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2UTAUT2

Identifiers

PMID41604597
PMCPMC12851524

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.