Impact of Artificial Intelligence or Telerehabilitation on Consumer Ratings in Physical Therapy: An Online Randomized Experiment

Clicks: 5
ID: 337978
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 #108 of 108 articles by views in Physical Therapy

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 Importance Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into health care delivery, but its influence on consumer perceptions of physical therapist services remains unclear. Objective The objective was to examine how the use of AI influences consumer perceptions of in-person and telerehabilitation physical therapist services. Design This study used a randomized 2 × 2 factorial experimental design comparing AI use and delivery mode. Setting The experiment was conducted online in Australia. Participants The study included 710 Australian adults recruited through a paid panel. Exposure Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 hypothetical physical therapist consultation scenarios (in-person vs telerehabilitation; AI used vs not used). Main Outcomes and Measures Perceived warmth; competence; safety; provider trust; emotional trust; relational and functional service quality; working alliance; and intention to use were measured on 7-point Likert-scales. Composite mean scores were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors. Results Mean scores in the no-AI, in-person condition ranged from 4.8 to 5.8. Among in-person scenarios, described AI use was associated with lower ratings across all outcomes, including warmth (b = -0.3, 95% CI = -0.5 to -0.1), competence (-0.4, -0.6 to -0.2) and safety (-0.8, -1.1 to -0.6), provider trust (-0.5, -0.7 to -0.3) and intention to use (-0.8, -1.0 to -0.5). Without AI, telerehabilitation also reduced ratings by 0.2 to 0.7 points across outcomes. Positive interaction effects indicated attenuation of AI-related reductions in telerehabilitation for relational (interaction b = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.1 to 0.8) and functional service quality (0.36, 0.02 to 0.70), intention to use (0.6, 0.1 to 1.0), and perceived safety (0.5, 0.1 to 0.9). Conclusions Hypothetical in-person consultations described as involving AI were associated with poorer consumer perceptions of physical therapists and services. Telerehabilitation was also perceived less favorably than in-person care. Relevance Future studies should test whether transparency and reassurance mitigate the effects of AI-use on consumer perceptions of physical therapy.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225000139 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Megan Heather Ross, Joshua Simmich, Daniela Berg, Trevor Russell
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Physical Therapy
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ptj/pzag122
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzag122
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.