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,&nbsp;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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Education and Counseling
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.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Web-based educational tools and decision aids for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review Dismissive medicine and gaslighting of patients by physicians – A bioethics lens Parental satisfaction with diagnosis disclosure: A study on parents of children or adults with genetic syndromes “What can I trust”: Exploring impact of dual-channel service review quality on patients’ online healthcare choices
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1