Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41632964›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Behavioral Dynamics of AI Trust and Health Care Delays Among Adults: Integrated Cross-Sectional Survey and Agent-Based Modeling Study.

Xueyao Cai, Weidong Li, Wenjun Shi, Yuchen Cai, Jianda Zhou

Abstract read
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Xueyao Cai *Department of Plastic Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4498-8978
Weidong Li *Department of Plastic Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6625-6314
Wenjun ShiDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6194-5342
Yuchen Cai *Department of Plastic Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7536-906X
Jianda Zhou *Department of Plastic Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2760-2389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant promise for health care, excessive trust in these tools may unintentionally delay patients from seeking professional care, particularly among patients with chronic illnesses. However, the behavioral dynamics underlying this phenomenon remain poorly understood.

objectiveThis study aims to quantify the influence of AI trust on health care delays through integrated survey-based mediation analysis and real-world research, and to simulate intervention efficacy using agent-based modeling (ABM).

methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted in China from December 2024 to May 2025. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling on social media (WeChat and QQ) and hospital portals. The survey included a 21-item questionnaire measuring AI trust (5-point Likert scale), AI usage frequency (6-point scale), chronic disease status (physician-diagnosed, binary), and self-reported health care delay (binary). Responses with completion time <90 seconds, logical inconsistencies, missing values, or duplicates were excluded. Analyses included descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic regression (α=.05), mediation analysis with nonparametric bootstrapping (500 iterations), and moderation testing. Subsequently, an ABM simulated 2460 agents within a small-world network over 14 days to model behavioral feedback and test 3 interventions: broadcast messaging, behavioral reward, and network rewiring.

resultsThe final sample included 2460 adults (mean age 34.46, SD 11.62 years; n=1345, 54.7% female). Higher AI trust was associated with increased odds of delays (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.18; P=.04), with usage frequency partially mediating this relationship (indirect OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.20-1.29; P<.001). Chronic disease status amplified the delay odds (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09-1.86; P=.01). The ABM demonstrated a bidirectional trust erosion loop, with population delay rates declining from 10.6% to 9.5% as mean AI trust decreased from 1.91 to 1.52. Interventions simulation found broadcast messaging most effective in reducing delay odds (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.94-0.95; P<.001), whereas network rewiring increased odds (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.05; P<.001), suggesting a "trust polarization" effect.

conclusionsThis study reveals a nuanced relationship between AI trust and delayed health care-seeking. While trust in AI enhances engagement, it can also lead to delayed care, particularly among patients with chronic conditions or frequent AI users. Integrating survey data with ABM highlights how AI trust and delay behaviors can strengthen one another over time. Our findings indicate that AI health tools should prioritize calibrated decision support rather than full automation to balance autonomy, odds, and decision quality in digital health. Unlike previous studies that focus solely on static associations, this research emphasizes the dynamic interactions between AI trust and delay behaviors.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceTrustAdultChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Delayagent-based modelingartificial intelligencechronic diseasehealth care delayreal-world research

Identifiers

PMID41632964
PMCPMC12914233

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.