Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42171538›Full record

Trial reportCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Trust and Technology Acceptance: Comparing Traditional Search Engines and Artificial Intelligence for Colorectal Cancer Information Seeking.

Brad Love, Charulata Ghosh, Weijia Shi, Karly Quaack, Michael Mackert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Brad LoveCenter for Health Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3865-5219
Charulata GhoshSchool of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Weijia ShiCenter for Health Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Karly QuaackCenter for Health Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Michael MackertCenter for Health Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health information seeking is transforming health promotion. Understanding how users accept and trust these communication technologies is critical for health communication and cancer control. This study examined how the Technology Acceptance Model II (TAM II) applies to colorectal cancer information seeking, comparing link-based search (e.g., Google search) versus generative response paradigms (e.g., ChatGPT/AI) while examining trust, perceived threat, and contextual factors in technology use decisions.MethodsA prospective, randomized 2×2 factorial experiment was conducted with 764 Texas adults randomly assigned to conditions to view either Google search results or ChatGPT responses for colorectal cancer symptoms, presented in either high-concern or low-concern scenarios. Participants completed validated measures including TAM II constructs adapted from Davis (1989) and Kamal et al (2020), multidimensional trust scales, Extended Parallel Process Model threat measures (Witte, 1992), and technology-related stress items, all demonstrating acceptable reliability (α > .77). Data analysis included two-way ANOVAs, correlation analysis, and stepwise regression modeling.ResultsGoogle search received significantly higher ratings than AI across all Technology Acceptance Model II constructs. Technology preferences appeared to reflect multiple factors including interface familiarity, trust in information sources, and usability expectations, with traditional search benefiting from established user mental models and transparent source attribution. Trust emerged as the strongest predictor of behavioral intention. No significant main effects were found for concern level, and no interaction effects emerged between technology type and concern level, indicating that technology preferences remained consistent regardless of symptom severity.ConclusionsFor cancer control and prevention, these findings suggest that patients seeking colorectal cancer symptom information may be more likely to trust and act upon traditional search results than AI-generated responses, focusing on technology use intentions for health information seeking that directly inform cancer screening and care-seeking behaviors, potentially affecting screening behaviors and care-seeking timing. Current AI implementations may not optimally serve health information needs with lower acceptance potentially related to limited source transparency and increased cognitive demands compared to familiar search interfaces, as suggested by preference patterns. Cancer control professionals should anticipate that the growing integration of AI into health information seeking may influence the public's cancer symptom evaluation and screening behaviors.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceColorectal NeoplasmsInformation Seeking BehaviorTrustAdultAgedFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTexasArtificial Intelligence (AI)Colorectal Cancer (CRC)digital health literacyhealth information seekingTechnology Acceptance Model (TAM)trust

Identifiers

PMID42171538
PMCPMC13198655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.