ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Using Theory-Based Frameworks to Identify Barriers, Facilitators, Expectations, and Willingness to Pay for Online Medical Consultation Services in China: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Online medical consultation (OMC) services have gained considerable attention as an integral component of telemedicine. Recently, AI has been increasingly integrated into OMC platforms, facilitating more efficient consultations and clinical decision-making. AI-driven OMC services can provide preliminary triage, medication guidance, and diagnostics for multiple medical conditions. Despite the availability and potential benefits of AI-driven OMC services, public acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for these services remain low. Objective: This study aimed to identify perceived barriers, facilitators, expectations, and factors shaping public acceptance of and stated WTP for AI-driven OMC services. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with patients, caregivers, and health care professionals to explore barriers, facilitators, expectations, and factors shaping public acceptance of and stated WTP for AI-driven OMC services. The study was informed by the theories of perceived risk and perceived benefit, which guided the development of the interview guide. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using NVivo (version 15; Lumivero) with deductive thematic analysis guided by these theories. Coding was conducted independently and cross-checked by 2 researchers to ensure credibility and consistency. Results: Thematic analysis of 20 in-depth interviews identified 2 main themes and 11 subthemes. Perceived risks and perceived benefits emerged as 2 key perspectives influencing participants' acceptance and WTP. Psychological, governance, social, functional, health, and financial risks reduced acceptance, whereas convenience, diversity, reliability, efficiency, and educational benefits promoted it. Participants' self-reported WTP ranged from RMB 0 to RMB 200 (US $0-$27.28; RMB 1=US $0.1364 as of January 15, 2025), with participants who had prior experience with OMC generally reporting higher values than those without prior OMC experience. Conclusions: This study identified facilitators and barriers influencing public acceptance of and WTP for AI-driven OMC services using theoretical constructs. Our findings offer valuable insights into the development and refinement of AI-driven OMC services, enabling more targeted pricing strategies and tailored services that address public preferences and concerns, as well as supporting the development of standardized regulatory governance for digital medical consultation platforms.
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.