ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Healthcare exceptionalism in patient perspectives on AI: implications for policy and practice.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Evolving healthcare policy and debates about patient protections require empirical evidence on public perspectives to promote trust and sustainability. If the public does not see AI in healthcare as fundamentally distinct from AI in other domains, major policy intervention or fundamental changes to AI governance may not be necessary. However, healthcare exceptionalism in public perception may indicate that current practice is insufficient to safeguard patient trust. Methods: The main outcomes were comfort with healthcare AI and comfort with 12 AI applications in other domains, measured on a 4-point Likert scale. Two factors of AI comfort were retained in exploratory factor analysis. Composite scores of AI comfort were calculated for each factor and compared with respondents' comfort with AI in healthcare using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted multivariable logistic regressions were used to analyze predictors of comfort with AI. Results: Comfort with healthcare AI was more closely aligned with perceptions of newer and riskier AI (eg, self-driving cars) than other AI types with which the public may be more familiar or more likely to perceive potential personal benefit (eg, fraud alerts). Conclusion: Investment in transparency and patient interests will be important to promote sustainability and trust in healthcare AI.
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.