Skip to content
Review Open access

When AI Sounds More Helpful: Users’ Perceptions of AI-Generated and Physician-Provided Health Information

Aug 2026 · Computers · 0 citations · 23 references

TL;DR

It is suggested that LLM-based chatbots may be perceived as useful supplemental information tools within future Internet health ecosystems, but their deployment should include safeguards that support transparency, verification, and appropriate reliance.

Abstract

AI-powered conversational agents are becoming part of the everyday Internet information ecosystem, reshaping how users seek, interpret, and act on health-related information outside clinical encounters. As large language model (LLM)-based chatbots are increasingly used as on-demand digital health information tools, understanding how users perceive their credibility, usefulness, and limitations is essential for the responsible design of future Internet-based health services. This mixed-method survey study examined how general adults evaluated healthcare-related question–answer pairs provided by physicians and generated by AI chatbots. A sample of U.S.-based adults recruited through Prolific (N = 62) rated each answer on clarity, usefulness, appropriateness of detail, trustworthiness, and perceived evidence, and provided open-ended explanations of their judgments. Primary mixed-effects analyses showed that both ChatGPT- and Claude-generated responses received higher overall participant ratings than physician-provided responses, although the estimated difference was substantially larger for Claude (ChatGPT–physician estimate = 0.250, 95% CI [0.135, 0.364]; Claude–physician estimate = 0.825, 95% CI [0.710, 0.939]). ChatGPT received higher ratings on four of the five dimensions but not on clarity, whereas Claude received higher ratings across all five dimensions. However, physician, ChatGPT, and Claude responses were always presented first, second, and third, respectively. Response source was therefore confounded with presentation position, and the observed differences cannot be attributed exclusively to source. The responses were also not matched for length or format. Qualitative findings showed that participants valued detailed, specific, and evidence-like explanations. Participants also expressed concerns about hallucination, privacy, over-reliance, and the need for clinician verification. These findings suggest that LLM-based chatbots may be perceived as useful supplemental information tools within future Internet health ecosystems, but their deployment should include safeguards that support transparency, verification, and appropriate reliance.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review Open access Jul 2026

“But it sounded confident”: the role of accuracy, tone, and disclaimers in users' medical decision-making

Accuracy emerged as the strongest predictor of user trust, although participants did not consistently identify inaccurate advice, and Conversational tone appears to have limited influence, while disclaimers may not consistently promote appropriate caution.

Kerstin Denecke, E. Gabarron · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

User evaluation of AI- and human-generated responses in digital health communication: a paired survey study

The 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 leng...

C. Schulz, Patrycja Adämmer, Emma Fechner et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Validation of an AI-powered mobile application for personalizing medical note explanations: a mixed-methods evaluation

This mixed-methods evaluation suggests that a deliberately constrained, language-focused AI system can improve the accessibility of medical notes while preserving clinical accuracy and safety while extending into clinical interpretation.

Nicholas Lamb · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Examining Preferences for Human vs. AI Sources in Online Health Information Seeking: Integrating the RISP and Source Credibility Perspectives.

It is suggested that RISP-related motivations explain when health information seeking becomes salient, whereas source credibility considerations help explain how individuals translate those motivations into source preferences.

Xuan Qian · 1 citation
Book Open access Sep 2026

Using AI-Generated Videos to Simulate Different People Communicating the Same Healthcare Needs: An Exploratory Study of Care Prioritisation and Trust Across Health Professional and Public Groups

Findings suggest that ambivalence and variability may reflect adaptive responses to cumulative cognitive, emotional, and organisational demands rather than resistance or error.

A. Kearns, A. Moorhead, M. Mulvenna et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

The Influence of AI-Generated Health Information on Medical Consultation Decision-Making Among Adults: A Systematic Review

AI-generated health information significantly shapes medical consultation behaviour, necessitating risk-stratified deployment strategies, clinician guidance frameworks, and interventions to ensure equitable access and preserve the physician-patient relationship.

Abeer Mohammed Khamis · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.