Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42602168›Full record

ArticleDigital health

When doctors are not present: Understanding patients trying generative AI in the post-prescription stage.

Avus C Y Hou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Avus C Y HouDepartment of Marketing and Distribution Management, Asia Eastern University of Science and Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2549-4118

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: When physicians are not physically present in patients' everyday illness management, individuals must continue making health-related decisions after receiving medical prescriptions. In these between-visit contexts, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used as a supplementary source of health information and guidance. However, the psychological mechanisms driving user engagement and subscription intention in healthcare-oriented GenAI remain underexplored. Methods: Guided by the Theory of Trying, this study examined how digital self-efficacy and health-AI skepticism are associated with attitudestoward success, failure, and the process of trying in health-related GenAI interactions. Survey data from 634 active ChatGPT users who reported using it for health-related queries were analyzed using component-based partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Results: Attitude toward the process of trying emerged as the strongest predictor of user engagement, followed by attitude toward success. Attitude toward failure did not predict engagement and, contrary to the hypothesized relationship, was positively associated with subscription intention. Health-AI skepticism was negatively associated with attitude toward success and the process of trying while being positively associated with anticipatory concerns about possible failure. Conclusions: In post-prescription and between-visit health management contexts, the findings highlight the importance of process-oriented evaluations alongside success-related evaluations in understanding engagement and subscription intention. These results clarify distinct motivational pathways associated with health-related GenAI use and offer implications for the design of supportive and ethically responsible GenAI systems.

Indexed as

digital self-efficacyengagementhealth-AI skepticismTheory of Trying

Identifiers

PMID42602168
PMCPMC13473773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.