ArticleBMC health services research2026
User evaluation of AI- and human-generated responses in digital health communication: a paired survey study.
Article in BMC health services 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health communication is gaining importance as health care systems face increasing demand and structural constraints. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly used for health information seeking; however, direct comparisons between AI-generated and human responses from the user perspective remain limited.
methodsA quantitative exploratory cross-sectional online survey using a paired-response design was conducted in Germany. The survey instrument was developed based on the study objectives and refined through pretesting. Participants evaluated two responses to the same real-world health query: one written by a physiotherapist and one generated by ChatGPT-4. Outcomes included perceived empathy, comprehensibility, perceived discriminatory content in the responses, and expert-rated clinical quality. Paired comparisons were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and logistic regression models were applied to explore associations between participant characteristics and preference patterns.
resultsThe analytical sample comprised 224 participants. Across most items, the AI-generated response was rated more favorably than the human response, particularly with regard to comprehensibility and empathy (all p < .001). The AI-generated response was rated more favorably across both empathy and comprehensibility items, with highly comparable preference distributions between the two domains. Perceptions of discriminatory content were rare and did not differ significantly between responses. Expert evaluations also favored the AI-generated response in terms of clinical accuracy and completeness, although these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the exploratory design.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that participants perceived the AI-generated response as aligning more closely with central user expectations for text-based health information, particularly regarding clarity and supportive language, although these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the substantial differences in length and structure between responses and the exploratory single-case design. At the same time, these perceptions should be considered alongside ongoing concerns regarding the clinical appropriateness, safety, and equity of AI-generated health information, which were not comprehensively assessed in the present study. The present findings therefore primarily provide evidence regarding user-perceived communication quality rather than the clinical validity of AI-generated responses. Accordingly, further research is needed to establish the clinical appropriateness, safety, guideline concordance, and potential role of AI-generated responses in healthcare consultation.
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.