Patient trust in health education attributed to generative artificial intelligence versus a physician: a randomized survey study of pregnant and postpartum women

Clicks: 9
ID: 337524
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #84 of 88 articles by views in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Objective To compare patient trust in educational health contentand the physician providing it, when authorship is attributed to a physician or generative artificial intelligence (AI). Materials and Methods In a preregistered randomized, parallel survey study, participants read a health education article. Individuals were randomized to 1 of 4 conditions, attributing authorship of an identical article to (1) a physician author, (2) generative AI, (3) a physician assisted by AI (hybrid authorship), or (4) no author. Pregnant or postpartum English-speaking US adults (n = 400) were recruited in August-October 2025 via an online survey panel. Eighty percent passed timing and attention checks. Participants rated article engagement, content trust, and trust in the (hypothetical) recommending physician with Likert-scales. Bonferroni corrections were applied to post hoc pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Results Among participants who correctly recalled authorship (n = 195), AI-only authorship was associated with lower trust in content (mean, 9.43 vs 11.11; P = .001) and the recommending physician (mean, 8.93 vs 10.84; P = .03) compared with physician-only authorship, while hybrid authorship did not differ significantly from physician-only authorship for either outcome (content: P = .08; physician: P > .99). Sensitivity analyses including all participants (n = 321) were generally consistent with the primary findings. Engagement did not differ significantly across conditions in the primary analytic sample. Discussion As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into clinical care, how AI involvement and physician oversight are communicated to patients could have important implications for patient trust. Conclusion AI authorship was associated with reduced trust in patient-facing education despite identical, clinician-written content.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224089900 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Shaila Fye, Kelsey A Schweiberger, Tamar Krishnamurti
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jamia/ocag180
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocag180
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.