Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for health information, yet its influence on users' trust calibration remains unclear. Objective: This study examines whether learned dependency on GenAI influences trust in AI-generated health information and whether text highlighting reduces overreliance on incorrect outputs. Methods: Two randomized controlled experiments were conducted with 338 college students and 563 Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. Both experiments used a 2 by 2 between-subjects design manipulating information accuracy (correct versus incorrect) and text highlighting (highlight versus no highlight). Trust and learned dependency were measured using validated scales, and linear regression models tested main and interaction effects. Results: In both experiments, information accuracy significantly increased trust (p < 0.001), while learned dependency was positively associated with trust (p < 0.05). The interaction between accuracy and dependency was significant (p < 0.001), indicating that highly dependent users were more likely to trust incorrect AI-generated information. Text highlighting had no significant effect on trust and did not moderate the relationship between dependency and trust. Conclusions: Learned dependency weakens trust calibration, increasing susceptibility to inaccurate AI-generated health information. Text highlighting alone is insufficient to reduce overreliance, highlighting the need for more effective interface designs that encourage critical evaluation of GenAI outputs.
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.
Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.
Users increasingly rely on consumer-facing generative AI (GenAI) for tasks ranging from everyday needs to sensitive use cases. Yet, it remains unclear whether and how existing security and privacy (S&P) communications in GenAI tools shape users' adoption decisions and experiences. Understanding how users seek, interpret, and evaluate S&P information is critical for designing usable transparency that users can trust and act on. We conducted semi-structured interviews and design sessions with 21 U.S. GenAI users. Our findings suggest that available S&P information rarely drove initial adoption in practice, as participants often perceived it as incomplete, ineffective, or not credible. Instead, they relied on rough proxies (e.g., popularity) to infer S&P practices. After adoption, S&P uncertainty constrained participants' willingness to use GenAI tools, especially for high-stakes purposes, and, in some cases, contributed to discontinued use. Participants therefore called for transparency that supports decisions and actions through trustworthy information (e.g., independent evaluations) and usable interfaces (e.g., on-demand disclosure). We categorize participants' desired design practices into five dimensions to facilitate systematic future investigation into best practices. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve S&P transparency in consumer-facing GenAI.