ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Self-Diagnosis and the Patient-Physician Relationship: Mixed Methods Study of Calibration, Participation, and Trust.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients increasingly use generative AI to interpret symptoms and seek health information, yet limited evidence shows how AI-assisted self-diagnosis is integrated into care-seeking and related to clinical interactions and patient-physician relationships. Objective: This study examined how AI-assisted self-diagnosis is incorporated into care-seeking processes and how it relates to patient participation in clinical encounters and trust in physicians. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used. In the qualitative phase, Chinese adults who had used generative AI to interpret symptoms, appraise possible conditions, or seek health advice within the previous year were purposively recruited through Xiaohongshu, WeChat Moments, and WeChat groups. Semistructured interviews were conducted from August 20, 2025, to January 10, 2026, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. In the quantitative phase, an anonymous web-based survey was conducted in China through Huixiang Data from January 25, 2026, through January 28, 2026. Adults who had used generative AI for health consultation involving symptom interpretation or preliminary self-diagnosis within the previous 6 months were recruited through convenience sampling. Measures included perceived AI-assisted self-diagnosis quality, calibrated illness appraisal, patient participation, diagnosis validation, diagnosis comprehension, trust in physicians, AI use frequency, trust in health information sources, and demographic characteristics. Trust in physicians was assessed using 5 adapted items covering competence, integrity, and benevolence. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and PROCESS mediation analyses were performed. Results: Qualitative findings (n=48) indicated that AI-assisted self-diagnosis was commonly used in a prediagnostic gray zone for preliminary orientation, informal triage, and interim self-management. Participants described AI as helping them appraise illness severity, prepare for consultations, ask questions, and understand physicians' diagnoses and reasoning. Quantitative findings (n=546) were consistent with these patterns. Perceived AI quality was positively associated with calibrated illness appraisal ( Conclusions: Generative AI may function as an informational intermediary across the care-seeking process rather than undermine medical authority. By supporting illness appraisal, consultation preparation, and postconsultation understanding, AI-assisted self-diagnosis may be associated with greater patient participation and trust in physicians.
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.