Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates consumer attitudes towards AI in digital health through a mixed-methods survey (N=275) in Australia, focusing on concrete AI applications rather than abstract perceptions. The study assessed consumer readiness, acceptance, trust, and risk perceptions, alongside a scenario-based evaluation comparing AI-generated and clinician-written consultation summaries. Results indicate that while participants showed optimism and perceived usefulness, they also harbored concerns about accuracy and data use, but surprisingly preferred the AI-generated summary for quality and empathy when blinded to its origin.
People judge healthcare AI based on communication quality and perceived human oversight, not just abstract trust or technical performance.
AI applications are increasingly being introduced into digital health. While technical performance has advanced rapidly, successful deployment mainly depends on consumer attitudes, especially to patient-facing applications. However, most existing research examines consumer attitudes towards healthcare AI at an abstract level rather than in response to concrete artefacts. We report a mixed-methods survey study in Australia (N=275) examining consumer readiness, acceptance, trust, and risk perceptions of healthcare AI, combined with a scenario-based evaluation of an AI-generated versus clinician-written consultation summary. Participants expressed moderate optimism and strong perceived usefulness and ease of use, but also substantial concerns about accuracy, safety, and data use. In the scenario task, the AI-generated summary was strongly preferred for quality, empathy, and overall usefulness, yet identification of the AI summary was near chance. Findings show that consumers judge AI through concrete communication quality and visible human governance, underscoring the need for clinically supervised deployment frameworks beyond technical performance alone.