RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Exploring factors influencing user perspective of ChatGPT as a technology that assists in healthcare decision making: A cross sectional survey study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.12.07.23299685
DO 10.1101/2023.12.07.23299685
A1 Choudhury, Avishek
A1 Elkefi, Safa
A1 Tounsi, Achraf
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/12/2023.12.07.23299685.abstract
AB 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 AI’s effectiveness depends on the data it’s 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 Cohen’s 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Our study received ethical approval from the West Virginia University Institutional Review Board under protocol number 2212691613. The study qualified for the WVU Flexibility Review Model, as it involves minimal risk and adheres to the Belmont Report's ethical principles. Approval was granted on February 7, 2023.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAnonymized data are available on personal contact with the corresponding author. Due to privacy concerns the raw data not available on any public repository.