Trust transfer from medical AI to doctors and hospitals: Integrating digital, AI, and scientific literacy in a cross-sectional framework.

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Jie Yao, Zhibo Zhou, Huaqing Cui, Yujie Ouyang, Wenhao Han
{"title":"Trust transfer from medical AI to doctors and hospitals: Integrating digital, AI, and scientific literacy in a cross-sectional framework.","authors":"Jie Yao, Zhibo Zhou, Huaqing Cui, Yujie Ouyang, Wenhao Han","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01300-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigates how different forms of literacy shape trust in medical AI and its transfer in healthcare contexts. Based on a survey of 1,250 participants, three findings emerge. First, digital literacy and AI literacy exert opposite influences on medical AI trust: while digital literacy enhances trust, higher AI literacy unexpectedly reduces it. This paradox highlights a theoretical puzzle in technology acceptance, suggesting that deeper knowledge can generate informed skepticism rather than blind confidence. Second, trust in medical AI transfers hierarchically, flowing to hospitals only through physician trust as a critical intermediary, underscoring the role of interpersonal trust in institutional trust building. Third, scientific literacy moderates this process, with higher literacy dampening trust transfer, reflecting the impact of cognitive processing differences. These results extend theories of trust and technology acceptance by integrating multiple literacies and uncovering divergent cognitive pathways. Practically, they call for communication strategies and policy designs that calibrate trust-strengthening physicians' role as trust brokers, balancing education about AI's capacities and risks, and leveraging explainable AI tools to sustain appropriate confidence in medical AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01300-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates how different forms of literacy shape trust in medical AI and its transfer in healthcare contexts. Based on a survey of 1,250 participants, three findings emerge. First, digital literacy and AI literacy exert opposite influences on medical AI trust: while digital literacy enhances trust, higher AI literacy unexpectedly reduces it. This paradox highlights a theoretical puzzle in technology acceptance, suggesting that deeper knowledge can generate informed skepticism rather than blind confidence. Second, trust in medical AI transfers hierarchically, flowing to hospitals only through physician trust as a critical intermediary, underscoring the role of interpersonal trust in institutional trust building. Third, scientific literacy moderates this process, with higher literacy dampening trust transfer, reflecting the impact of cognitive processing differences. These results extend theories of trust and technology acceptance by integrating multiple literacies and uncovering divergent cognitive pathways. Practically, they call for communication strategies and policy designs that calibrate trust-strengthening physicians' role as trust brokers, balancing education about AI's capacities and risks, and leveraging explainable AI tools to sustain appropriate confidence in medical AI.

从医疗人工智能到医生和医院的信任转移:在横断面框架中整合数字、人工智能和科学素养。
本研究调查了不同形式的素养如何塑造医疗人工智能的信任及其在医疗保健环境中的转移。根据对1250名参与者的调查,有三个发现。首先,数字素养和人工智能素养对医疗人工智能信任的影响是相反的:数字素养增强了信任,而更高的人工智能素养出人意料地降低了信任。这一悖论凸显了技术接受中的一个理论难题,表明更深入的知识可以产生有根据的怀疑,而不是盲目的信心。其次,对医疗人工智能的信任是分层转移的,只有通过医生信任这一关键中介才能流向医院,这强调了人际信任在机构信任建设中的作用。第三,科学素养调节了这一过程,较高的科学素养抑制了信任转移,反映了认知加工差异的影响。这些结果通过整合多种素养和揭示不同的认知途径,扩展了信任和技术接受理论。实际上,他们呼吁制定沟通策略和政策设计,以校准加强信任的医生作为信任经纪人的角色,平衡关于人工智能能力和风险的教育,并利用可解释的人工智能工具来维持对医疗人工智能的适当信心。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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