Do people prefer AI-generated patient educational materials over traditional ones?

IF 2.9 2区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Patient Education and Counseling Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2025.108672

Kathia E. Nitsch, Srinivas J. Ivatury

{"title":"Do people prefer AI-generated patient educational materials over traditional ones?","authors":"Kathia E. Nitsch, Srinivas J. Ivatury","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2025.108672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to assess people’s preference between traditional and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated colon cancer staging Patient Education Materials (PEMs).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We assessed preference among patients and companions being seen for a non-cancer diagnosis at the UT Health Austin Colon and Rectal Surgery Clinic. Participants were blinded to the study concept of AI and generation method of PEMs (Traditional: National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society; AI-generated: ChatGPT and Google Bard). Participants completed an anonymous demographic survey and ranked their PEM preference for randomized, de-identified materials. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in preference between the AI-generated and traditional PEMs. This study is IRB approved (STUDY00005203).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>35 participants were recruited, ages 27–79 years (mean 46; SD 14 years) and 57 % female. 54 % were four-year college graduates. Among the participants, 51 % ranked the traditional PEMs as most preferred, while 49 % ranked the AI-generated PEMs as most preferred (<em>p</em> = NS).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>People do not have a dominant preference for AI-generated or traditional PEMs.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>Further investigation on the use of AI for PEM generation is warranted. AI may be capable of generating PEMs that incorporate the strengths of traditional PEMs while also reducing the required resources for PEM generation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 108672"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Education and Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399125000394","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to assess people’s preference between traditional and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated colon cancer staging Patient Education Materials (PEMs).

Methods

We assessed preference among patients and companions being seen for a non-cancer diagnosis at the UT Health Austin Colon and Rectal Surgery Clinic. Participants were blinded to the study concept of AI and generation method of PEMs (Traditional: National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society; AI-generated: ChatGPT and Google Bard). Participants completed an anonymous demographic survey and ranked their PEM preference for randomized, de-identified materials. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in preference between the AI-generated and traditional PEMs. This study is IRB approved (STUDY00005203).

Results

35 participants were recruited, ages 27–79 years (mean 46; SD 14 years) and 57 % female. 54 % were four-year college graduates. Among the participants, 51 % ranked the traditional PEMs as most preferred, while 49 % ranked the AI-generated PEMs as most preferred (p = NS).

Conclusion

People do not have a dominant preference for AI-generated or traditional PEMs.

Practice implications

Further investigation on the use of AI for PEM generation is warranted. AI may be capable of generating PEMs that incorporate the strengths of traditional PEMs while also reducing the required resources for PEM generation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Patient Education and Counseling 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

11.40%

发文量

384

审稿时长

46 days

期刊介绍： Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate the educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of organizational issues involved with the delivery of patient education, counseling, health promotion services and training models in improving communication between providers and patients.