JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by pharmaceutical companies and other organizations to prepare patient-facing documents reporting results of clinical research is becoming more common. This raises concerns about whether this could affect the accuracy and quality of these documents, as well as whether it might impact patient perceptions and trust. Accurate and trustworthy information is critical to healthcare decision-making. Little is known about patient and public perceptions of AI-generated content.

Objective:

This study aimed to better understand patient experience and familiarity with AI, their resulting confidence in the abilities of AI, and their trust in the use of AI by research organizations to generate clinical research documents.

Methods:

An online survey was conducted among the public in Europe and the United States to assess familiarity with AI, trust in organizations reporting on research, and trust in the use of AI to prepare clinical research documents. The survey also asked directly about the importance of human involvement and of transparency in disclosing AI use.

Results:

1,010 respondents completed the online survey. About half of respondents were from the United States and half from Europe. Respondents were diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, and level of education. Survey results showed that 63.6% of respondents had used AI before with 74.9% reporting being "Somewhat" or "Very" familiar with AI. Higher familiarity was observed among younger participants, those with higher education, and those from Europe. Respondents were generally confident in the capabilities of AI, as more than half believed AI use would reduce grammar and data errors. Trust in clinical trial documents generally increased with greater human oversight, as trust was lowest for documents created by AI with no human involvement (12.3% "A lot" of trust) and highest for documents created by humans without AI (39.1% "A lot" of trust). 95% of respondents considered human involvement in clinical trial document review as "Very important" or “Somewhat important.” The majority (62.4%) of respondents felt it was "Very important" for pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to be transparent about their use of AI in public-facing documents. Transparency was considered more important among respondents in the United States and the United Kingdom compared to those in the European Union.

Conclusions:

The survey results reveal high familiarity with, and confidence in the capabilities of, AI. Despite this confidence, respondents emphasized the need for human involvement in the creation of clinical trial documents and the importance of disclosing AI usage, underscoring the critical role of human oversight in maintaining public trust. Transparent integration of AI with deliberate human involvement remains essential to ensure trust in patient-facing documents.