ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Trust in large language model-based solutions in healthcare among people with and without diabetes: a cross-sectional survey from the Health in Central Denmark cohort.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Changes in public perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare after exposure to ChatGPT.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Large language models have gained significant public awareness since ChatGPT's release in 2022. This study describes the perception of chatbots in healthcare among people with and without diabetes. Methods and analysis: In 2024, an online survey was sent to 136 229 people, aged 18-89 years in the Health in Central Denmark cohort, including equestions related to the perception of artificial intelligence (AI) and chatbots. Questions assessed trust in chatbots in various healthcare scenarios (lifestyle, diagnostic, contact with general practitioner (GP) and emergency contact) alongside participants' level of experience with ChatGPT. In one item, participants were randomly presented with either a more severe (emergency) or less severe (GP contact) scenario. We used multinomial logistic regression to investigate the association of diabetes status and demographic characteristics with trust in chatbots in different scenarios. Results: 39 109 participants completed the questionnaire. The majority were aware of AI (94%), although fewer had heard of ChatGPT (76%), and only 21% had tried it. Most participants trusted chatbots with involvement of healthcare professionals (HCPs) (49%-55%), while few trusted without them (3%-6%). The degree of trust depended on the severity of the scenario, demonstrated by lower odds (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66) of trusting the chatbot under the control of HCPs in emergency care compared with contact with the GP. Type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes, was associated with less trust in chatbots than people without diabetes. Moreover, age, sex, duration of education and experience with ChatGPT also had an impact on trust. Conclusion: Chatbots are seen as supportive tools among public users when controlled by HCPs but are met with more scepticism in more severe situations. Digital exclusion risks and demographic differences, such as age, sex and disease-specific conditions (eg, type 2 diabetes), need to be addressed to ensure equitable and meaningful implementation.
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.