ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Research on the Improvement Path of Human-AI Collaborative Consultation Effectiveness From the Perspective of Information Ecology: Configurational Analysis.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Enhancing the effectiveness of human-AI collaborative consultation in online health communities (OHCs) constitutes a core requirement for optimizing the allocation of medical resources and promoting the sustainable development of medical services. Nevertheless, the pathways to improving such effectiveness remain insufficiently understood. Objective: This study aimed to conduct an in-depth exploration of the multiple factors influencing the effectiveness of human-AI collaborative consultation in OHCs and to assess the causal relationships among these factors, thereby providing a theoretical foundation and practical guidance for advancing the clinical application of human-AI collaboration. Methods: Grounded in the information ecology theory, we constructed an analytical framework encompassing four dimensions: information human, information, environment, and technology. We collected 296 valid questionnaire responses and used fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to systematically investigate the configurational mechanisms through which these four types of factors jointly influence consultation effectiveness. Results: The findings are as follows: (1) no single factor constitutes a sufficient condition for high consultation effectiveness (consistency <0.9); rather, such effectiveness emerges from the synergistic interplay of multiple configurations involving technology, information, human information, and environment; (2) five distinct configurational pathways lead to high consultation effectiveness, demonstrating clear equifinality; (3) system responsiveness, information usefulness, perceived service empathy, perceived service accuracy, and perceived service effectiveness are all core or important conditions across these pathways; and (4) substitutability exists among antecedent conditions-specifically, perceived uncertainty and social norms, as well as operational convenience and platform ethical norms, can substitute for one another in different configurations to enhance patient satisfaction jointly. Conclusions: This study reveals multiple pathways to achieving high effectiveness in human-AI collaborative consultation within OHCs. It not only offers a novel theoretical perspective for understanding the complex mechanisms of human-AI collaboration in medical contexts, but also provides significant practical implications for the design optimization of digital health platforms and related policy formulation.
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.