Assessing the Capability of Large Language Models for Navigation of the Australian Health Care System: Comparative Study.

IF 2
JMIR AI Pub Date : 2025-10-07 DOI:10.2196/76203
Joshua Simmich, Megan Heather Ross, Trevor Glen Russell
{"title":"Assessing the Capability of Large Language Models for Navigation of the Australian Health Care System: Comparative Study.","authors":"Joshua Simmich, Megan Heather Ross, Trevor Glen Russell","doi":"10.2196/76203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Australians can face significant challenges in navigating the health care system, especially in rural and regional areas. Generative search tools, powered by large language models (LLMs), show promise in improving health information retrieval by generating direct answers. However, concerns remain regarding their accuracy and reliability when compared to traditional search engines in a health care context.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) search (ie, Microsoft Copilot) versus a conventional search engine (Google Web Search) for navigating health care information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 97 adults in Queensland, Australia, participated in a web-based survey, answering scenario-based health care navigation questions using either Microsoft Copilot or Google Web Search. Accuracy was assessed using binary correct or incorrect ratings, graded correctness (incorrect, partially correct, or correct), and numerical scores (0-2 for service identification and 0-6 for criteria). Participants also completed a Technology Rating Questionnaire (TRQ) to evaluate their experience with their assigned tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants assigned to Microsoft Copilot outperformed the Google Web Search group on 2 health care navigation tasks (identifying aged care application services and listing mobility allowance eligibility criteria), with no clear evidence of a difference in the remaining 6 tasks. On the TRQ, participants rated Google Web Search higher in willingness to adopt and perceived impact on quality of life, and lower in effort needed to learn. Both tools received similar ratings in perceived value, confidence, help required to use, and concerns about privacy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generative AI tools can achieve comparable accuracy to traditional search engines for health care navigation tasks, though this did not translate into an improved user experience. Further evaluation is needed as AI technology improves and users become more familiar with its use.</p>","PeriodicalId":73551,"journal":{"name":"JMIR AI","volume":"4 ","pages":"e76203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12508777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR AI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/76203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Australians can face significant challenges in navigating the health care system, especially in rural and regional areas. Generative search tools, powered by large language models (LLMs), show promise in improving health information retrieval by generating direct answers. However, concerns remain regarding their accuracy and reliability when compared to traditional search engines in a health care context.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) search (ie, Microsoft Copilot) versus a conventional search engine (Google Web Search) for navigating health care information.

Methods: A total of 97 adults in Queensland, Australia, participated in a web-based survey, answering scenario-based health care navigation questions using either Microsoft Copilot or Google Web Search. Accuracy was assessed using binary correct or incorrect ratings, graded correctness (incorrect, partially correct, or correct), and numerical scores (0-2 for service identification and 0-6 for criteria). Participants also completed a Technology Rating Questionnaire (TRQ) to evaluate their experience with their assigned tool.

Results: Participants assigned to Microsoft Copilot outperformed the Google Web Search group on 2 health care navigation tasks (identifying aged care application services and listing mobility allowance eligibility criteria), with no clear evidence of a difference in the remaining 6 tasks. On the TRQ, participants rated Google Web Search higher in willingness to adopt and perceived impact on quality of life, and lower in effort needed to learn. Both tools received similar ratings in perceived value, confidence, help required to use, and concerns about privacy.

Conclusions: Generative AI tools can achieve comparable accuracy to traditional search engines for health care navigation tasks, though this did not translate into an improved user experience. Further evaluation is needed as AI technology improves and users become more familiar with its use.

评估澳洲医疗保健系统导航的大型语言模型的能力:比较研究。
背景:澳大利亚人在医疗保健系统导航方面可能面临重大挑战,特别是在农村和地区。由大型语言模型(llm)提供支持的生成式搜索工具有望通过生成直接答案来改进健康信息检索。然而,与医疗保健领域的传统搜索引擎相比,它们的准确性和可靠性仍然令人担忧。目的:本研究旨在比较生成式人工智能(AI)搜索(即Microsoft Copilot)与传统搜索引擎(b谷歌Web search)在导航医疗保健信息方面的有效性。方法:澳大利亚昆士兰州共有97名成年人参与了一项基于网络的调查,使用微软Copilot或谷歌网络搜索回答基于场景的医疗保健导航问题。使用二元正确或不正确评级、分级正确性(不正确、部分正确或正确)和数字分数(服务识别为0-2,标准为0-6)来评估准确性。参与者还完成了一份技术评级问卷(TRQ),以评估他们使用指定工具的体验。结果:分配给Microsoft Copilot的参与者在2个医疗保健导航任务(识别老年护理应用服务和列出移动津贴资格标准)上优于b谷歌Web Search组,在其余6个任务中没有明确的差异证据。在TRQ上,参与者对谷歌网络搜索的接受意愿和对生活质量的感知影响评分较高,而学习所需的努力较低。这两种工具在感知价值、信心、使用所需的帮助和对隐私的关注方面获得了相似的评级。结论:在医疗保健导航任务中,生成式人工智能工具可以达到与传统搜索引擎相当的准确性,尽管这并没有转化为改进的用户体验。随着人工智能技术的进步和用户对其用法的熟悉,需要进一步的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信