Who Trusts AI for Health Information? A Cross-National Survey on Trust Determinants in Four European Countries.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Health Communication Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-23 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2025.2601265
Anne Reinhardt, Jörg Matthes, Selma Hodzic, Jaroslava Kaňková, Ljubisa Bojic, Helle T Maindal, Corina Paraschiv, Knud Ryom
{"title":"Who Trusts AI for Health Information? A Cross-National Survey on Trust Determinants in Four European Countries.","authors":"Anne Reinhardt, Jörg Matthes, Selma Hodzic, Jaroslava Kaňková, Ljubisa Bojic, Helle T Maindal, Corina Paraschiv, Knud Ryom","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2025.2601265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT become increasingly popular sources of health information, understanding what shapes users' trust in AI-generated health information (AI-HI) is essential. Despite growing use, little is known about how human- and source-related factors jointly influence trust across national contexts. Drawing on frameworks from AI trust and online health information research, this study used multi-group structural equation modeling with representative samples from Austria (<i>N</i> = 502), Denmark (<i>N</i> = 507), France (<i>N</i> = 498), and Serbia (<i>N</i> = 483) to predict trust in AI-HI and its effect on intention to use AI-HI. AI literacy and performance expectancy consistently increased trust across countries, while social norms and prior AI-HI experience showed smaller, context-dependent effects. Health literacy, personal innovativeness, effort expectancy, and surveillance risk perceptions were not significant. Informational risk perceptions had only a weak negative effect on trust, indicating that while concerns about inaccuracy can reduce confidence, they play a relatively minor role in shaping it. Trust strongly predicted intention to use AI-HI in all countries, with path-level effects largely stable across contexts. These findings suggest that trust in AI-HI is shaped more by digital capabilities, perceived utility, and social endorsement than by privacy concerns or health literacy. Future research should examine how digital literacy interventions and transparency standards can foster informed trust in these systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1873-1885"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2601265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT become increasingly popular sources of health information, understanding what shapes users' trust in AI-generated health information (AI-HI) is essential. Despite growing use, little is known about how human- and source-related factors jointly influence trust across national contexts. Drawing on frameworks from AI trust and online health information research, this study used multi-group structural equation modeling with representative samples from Austria (N = 502), Denmark (N = 507), France (N = 498), and Serbia (N = 483) to predict trust in AI-HI and its effect on intention to use AI-HI. AI literacy and performance expectancy consistently increased trust across countries, while social norms and prior AI-HI experience showed smaller, context-dependent effects. Health literacy, personal innovativeness, effort expectancy, and surveillance risk perceptions were not significant. Informational risk perceptions had only a weak negative effect on trust, indicating that while concerns about inaccuracy can reduce confidence, they play a relatively minor role in shaping it. Trust strongly predicted intention to use AI-HI in all countries, with path-level effects largely stable across contexts. These findings suggest that trust in AI-HI is shaped more by digital capabilities, perceived utility, and social endorsement than by privacy concerns or health literacy. Future research should examine how digital literacy interventions and transparency standards can foster informed trust in these systems.

谁相信人工智能的健康信息?四个欧洲国家信任决定因素的跨国调查。
随着ChatGPT等生成式人工智能(AI)系统成为越来越受欢迎的健康信息来源,了解是什么影响了用户对AI生成的健康信息(AI- hi)的信任至关重要。尽管越来越多地使用,但人们对人和与来源有关的因素如何共同影响国家背景下的信任知之甚少。本研究借鉴人工智能信任和在线健康信息研究的框架,采用多组结构方程模型,以奥地利(N = 502)、丹麦(N = 507)、法国(N = 498)和塞尔维亚(N = 483)的代表性样本来预测人工智能- hi的信任及其对使用人工智能- hi意愿的影响。人工智能素养和绩效预期持续增加了各国之间的信任,而社会规范和先前的人工智能- hi经验显示出较小的、依赖于情境的影响。健康素养、个人创新能力、努力预期和监测风险感知不显著。信息风险感知对信任只有微弱的负面影响,这表明尽管对不准确的担忧会降低信心,但它们在塑造信心方面的作用相对较小。信任强烈预测了所有国家使用AI-HI的意愿,路径水平的影响在不同背景下基本稳定。这些发现表明,对AI-HI的信任更多地取决于数字能力、感知效用和社会认可,而不是隐私问题或健康素养。未来的研究应考察数字扫盲干预措施和透明度标准如何能够促进对这些系统的知情信任。
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
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
×
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
小红书