Back

Exploring factors influencing user perspective of ChatGPT as a technology that assists in healthcare decision making: A cross sectional survey study.

Choudhury, A.; Elkefi, S.; Tounsi, A.

2023-12-09 health informatics
10.1101/2023.12.07.23299685 medRxiv
Show abstract

As ChatGPT emerges as a potential ally in healthcare decision-making, it is imperative to investigate how users leverage and perceive it. The repurposing of technology is innovative but brings risks, especially since AIs effectiveness depends on the data its fed. In healthcare, where accuracy is critical, ChatGPT might provide sound advice based on current medical knowledge, which could turn into misinformation if its data sources later include erroneous information. Our study assesses user perceptions of ChatGPT, particularly of those who used ChatGPT for healthcare-related queries. By examining factors such as competence, reliability, transparency, trustworthiness, security, and persuasiveness of ChatGPT, the research aimed to understand how users rely on ChatGPT for health-related decision-making. A web-based survey was distributed to U.S. adults using ChatGPT at least once a month. Data was collected from February to March 2023. Bayesian Linear Regression was used to understand how much ChatGPT aids in informed decision-making. This analysis was conducted on subsets of respondents, both those who used ChatGPT for healthcare decisions and those who did not. Qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis, with thematic coding to extract public opinions on urban environmental policies. The coding process was validated through inter-coder reliability assessments, achieving a Cohens Kappa coefficient of 0.75. Six hundred and seven individuals responded to the survey. Respondents were distributed across 306 US cities of which 20 participants were from rural cities. Of all the respondents, 44 used ChatGPT for health-related queries and decision-making. While all users valued the content quality, privacy, and trustworthiness of ChatGPT across different contexts, those using it for healthcare information place a greater emphasis on safety, trust, and the depth of information. Conversely, users engaging with ChatGPT for non-healthcare purposes prioritize usability, human-like interaction, and unbiased content. In conclusion our study findings suggest a clear demarcation in user expectations and requirements from AI systems based on the context of their use.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.1%
2
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
4
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.6%
5
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.0%
7
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
9
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
12
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.6%
14
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.6%
15
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
16
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
17
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
19
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
26
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
27
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%