ArticleJAMA network open2026
Consumer Perspectives on Trust in and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve patient-centered care, yet several AI health care projects have failed due to public backlash, underscoring the importance of social license (informal public acceptance of AI in health care, grounded in trust and expectation of public benefit). How consumers conceptualize social license remains largely unknown. Objectives: To explore social license for AI in health care among consumers and to identify strategies for achieving it. Design, Setting, and Participants: A participatory qualitative study using the comfort board method was conducted across workshops in Queensland, Australia, in September 2025, applying abductive reflexive thematic analysis. Participants were recruited using a mix of convenience and purposive sampling. Eligibility criteria included being aged 18 years or older, residing in Queensland, self-reported receiving care in a Queensland health care facility within the past 24 months, and able to communicate in English. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concept of social license for AI in health care and strategies for achieving it. Results: Thirty-four participants (21 [62%] female) were included, with diverse ages (16 [53%] aged 31-60 years), countries of birth, disability statuses, and AI familiarity. Key themes of social license for AI included relational engagement, structural support, and performance reliability. Performance reliability was critical in short-term care, whereas relational engagement and structural support were more salient in long-term care. According to participants, achieving social license would require AI systems to function as supportive clinical tools, governed by strict stakeholder-driven standards and developed through codesign that aligns them with care needs, contexts, and patient-clinician interactions. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of consumer perspectives on AI in health care found that social license for AI is a conditional and dynamic construct not a fixed state; structural, performance, and relational factors intersected to shape social license. The findings provide evidence-based recommendations for stakeholders designing and implementing AI in clinical settings, highlighting the need for AI tools designed to support both consumers and clinicians in delivering care that is personalized, empathetic, and responsive to patient needs.
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.