ArticleJournal of palliative medicine2026
How Hospice and Palliative Care Are Portrayed in Artificial Intelligence-Generated Images: A Content Analysis.
Article in Journal of palliative medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAI-generated images can support or impede health communication efforts and influence perceptions of health-related topics, making it important to evaluate how these images portray topics like palliative care (PC) and hospice care (HC), which are characterized by limited public understanding (e.g., regarding where these services are delivered) and misperceptions (e.g., widespread conflation of these services).
objectivesTo examine characteristics of AI-generated PC and HC images.
designThree generative AI tools (ChatGPT, DreamStudio, and Midjourney) were used to generate 40 images each for the prompts "a photograph of palliative care" and "a photograph of hospice care" (
resultsPC images more often depicted medical settings (PC = 37.5%, HC = 27.5%) and medical equipment (PC = 67.5%, HC = 50.0%). DreamStudio images were the most medicalized. When included, patients were generally presented as White (PC = 85.0%, HC = 91.0%), female (PC = 81.0%, HC = 75.3%), and older (PC = 88.0%, HC = 94.4%) and rarely had negative affect (PC = 5.0%, HC = 2.2%) or looked ill (PC = 4.0%, HC = 2.2%). Providers were more racially diverse (PC = 41.1%, HC = 48.4% non-White), but nearly all were women (PC = 95.9%, HC = 96.9% female). Providers displayed supportive touch frequently (PC = 72.6%, HC = 71.9%) but were rarely shown engaging in medical tasks (PC = 12.3%, HC = 6.3%). Caregivers were infrequently included in either PC or HC images.
conclusionsThe few substantial differences identified between PC and HC images could reinforce conflation between these services. Some image features could also create additional misperceptions (e.g., regarding the role of caregivers).
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.