ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Use of generative AI for health among urban youth in Pakistan: A mixed-methods study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative AI (GAI) tools are increasingly used informally for health, yet evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. This study generates early evidence on such health systems from the fifth most populous country: Pakistan. We used a youth-led convergent mixed-methods design among digitally connected urban youth in Pakistan (survey N = 1240, 20 interviews). The primary outcome was any GAI use for health. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models and conducted reflexive thematic analysis. Overall, 69.0% of participants reported using GAI for health. Higher odds of use were observed among women (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.17-2.11], p = 0.003) and youth reporting any mental or physical condition (aOR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.34-2.48], p < .001). Greater trust in AI strongly predicted use (per-level aOR = 4.21, 95% CI [2.98-6.01], p < .001). High confidence using AI (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI [1.11-3.07], p = 0.022), awareness of AI risks (aOR = 1.67, 95% CI [1.20-2.31], p = 0.002), and prior use of other (non-generative) digital health tools (aOR = 4.48, 95% CI [2.59-8.23], p < .001) were also associated with higher likelihood of use. Telemedicine use was significant though weaker in magnitude (aOR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.01-2.54], p = 0.049). Interviews highlighted three themes: (1) access and affordability driving first-line use; (2) emotional safety and informational support, especially for stigmatized concerns; (3) perceived empowerment in interpreting tests, organizing symptoms, and preparing for clinical visits. Given constrained, stigmatizing, and costly services, GAI may function as an adjunct step for health information and emotional support in Pakistan's health ecosystem.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.