Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,203 studies31 sourcesUpdated 38 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYJMIR AI

Trust, Risk, and Uncertainty Surrounding the Use of AI in Health Care: Scoping Review of Studies on Public Perception.

  1. 1School of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada, 1 (519) 888-4567.

Abstract

Background

While AI has existed for decades, the introduction of generative AI tools and subsequent advancements in their capability and public use resulted in a shift in public awareness and perceptions of AI. In response, the research community has grown increasingly interested in understanding public perceptions of AI use in various contexts, including health care. Public perceptions shape AI acceptance and consequently integration into health care. It is thus crucial to understand public trust in AI and perceptions of risk as we consider its implementation moving forward.Objective

This study aimed to (1) document the extent of what is known within the literature regarding public perceptions of AI applications in health; (2) interrogate existing definitions and theories of trust being used to guide investigations of public trust in AI; and (3) identify practice and policy considerations and support the design, deployment, and regulation of these technologies in a manner that is trustworthy.Methods

The Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were used to review publications between 2022 and 2024 across 4 databases, resulting in the inclusion of 41 papers for review. Key findings were then charted and organized into tables to help answer the proposed research questions.Results

Public trust in AI in health care was shaped by discourse relating to AI performance and concerns related to depersonalization, loss of human connection, privacy, bias, and transparency. Trust was found to be higher when AI was supporting rather than replacing health care professionals and was influenced by emotional responses, anthropomorphism, demographic factors, and institutional trust. Furthermore, trust extended beyond algorithms to software interfaces, providers, developers, and governing institutions, highlighting the importance of governance and oversight. Conceptualizations of trust varied widely, and trust was defined through vulnerability, competence, benevolence, and integrity. Different theories identified suggested that trust operates across individual, social, institutional, and technological levels. Finally, trust was closely linked to risk and uncertainty, where perceived risk reduced acceptance, while AI literacy, transparency, and explainability mitigated concerns and fostered trust.Conclusions

Trust in AI is not uniform, and as such, efforts to build and measure trust must account for these nuances to effectively mitigate risk and support informed, ethical AI integration and deployment. On the basis of the findings of this review, we propose a multilevel conceptual framework that provides a general understanding of public trust in AI within a health care context that may guide research and policy and practice considerations. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public trust when implementing AI in health care and may support AI communication strategies, policy development, and trustworthy AI development.

Related

  1. Radiation-Related Fear, Risk Perception, and Occupational Responses Among Healthcare Workers and Health Professions Students: A Scoping Review.
    Venera M Almatova, Zhanar Kozhakhmetova, Indira M Bozheyeva +3
    Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textMedical imaging & radiologyEurope PMC
  2. Measuring sugar intake in oral health birth cohort studies: a scoping review
    Shilpa Sarawagi, Karla Gambetta-Tessini, Silas Alves-Costa +3
    Frontiers in NutritionPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral biologyEpidemiology & public healthHAL
  3. Measurement tools of online social capital among adult population in health studies: a scoping review
    Paulina Sekuła, Natalie Jagło, Michalina Gajdzica +9
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  4. Scoping Review of Oral Health-Related Birth Cohort Studies: Toward a Global Consortium
    K.G. Peres, G.G. Nascimento, A. Gupta +3
    Journal of Dental ResearchPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC21 citedGeneral biologyEpidemiology & public healthHAL
  5. Vaping during pregnancy and maternal, fetal, and infant health outcomes: A scoping review of human and animal studies
    Stella Fielder, Chloe Barnes, Laura Ormesher +4
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsPLOS
BibTeX
@article{nascimento2026trust,
  title = {{Trust, Risk, and Uncertainty Surrounding the Use of AI in Health Care: Scoping Review of Studies on Public Perception.}},
  author = {Helena Godinho Nascimento and Sultan Abdulkarim and Abel Torres-Espin and Saba Soltani and Geetika Arikati and Samantha B Meyer},
  journal = {JMIR AI},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.2196/100747},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42961493},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Trust, Risk, and Uncertainty Surrounding the Use of AI in Health Care: Scoping Review of Studies on Public Perception.
AU  - Helena Godinho Nascimento
AU  - Sultan Abdulkarim
AU  - Abel Torres-Espin
AU  - Saba Soltani
AU  - Geetika Arikati
AU  - Samantha B Meyer
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/30
JO  - JMIR AI
DO  - 10.2196/100747
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42961493
AB  - Background  While AI has existed for decades, the introduction of generative AI tools and subsequent advancements in their capability and public use resulted in a shift in public awareness and perceptions of AI. In response, the research community has grown increasingly interested in understanding public perceptions of AI use in various contexts, including health care. Public perceptions shape AI acceptance and consequently integration into health care. It is thus crucial to understand public trust in AI and perceptions of risk as we consider its implementation moving forward.Objective  This study aimed to (1) document the extent of what is known within the literature regarding public perceptions of AI applications in health; (2) interrogate existing definitions and theories of trust being used to guide investigations of public trust in AI; and (3) identify practice and policy considerations and support the design, deployment, and regulation of these technologies in a manner that is trustworthy.Methods  The Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were used to review publications between 2022 and 2024 across 4 databases, resulting in the inclusion of 41 papers for review. Key findings were then charted and organized into tables to help answer the proposed research questions.Results  Public trust in AI in health care was shaped by discourse relating to AI performance and concerns related to depersonalization, loss of human connection, privacy, bias, and transparency. Trust was found to be higher when AI was supporting rather than replacing health care professionals and was influenced by emotional responses, anthropomorphism, demographic factors, and institutional trust. Furthermore, trust extended beyond algorithms to software interfaces, providers, developers, and governing institutions, highlighting the importance of governance and oversight. Conceptualizations of trust varied widely, and trust was defined through vulnerability, competence, benevolence, and integrity. Different theories identified suggested that trust operates across individual, social, institutional, and technological levels. Finally, trust was closely linked to risk and uncertainty, where perceived risk reduced acceptance, while AI literacy, transparency, and explainability mitigated concerns and fostered trust.Conclusions  Trust in AI is not uniform, and as such, efforts to build and measure trust must account for these nuances to effectively mitigate risk and support informed, ethical AI integration and deployment. On the basis of the findings of this review, we propose a multilevel conceptual framework that provides a general understanding of public trust in AI within a health care context that may guide research and policy and practice considerations. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public trust when implementing AI in health care and may support AI communication strategies, policy development, and trustworthy AI development.
SN  - 2817-1705
ER  -