ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Health equity and public acceptance of large language models in healthcare in China: A national population-based survey.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are entering healthcare, but their ability to improve access depends on public willingness to use them. If acceptance is socially patterned, deployment may widen existing inequities. We quantified public acceptance of LLMs in healthcare and examined its bio-psycho-social correlates in China. We conducted a representative, multistage stratified survey of adults aged 18 years or older across 150 Chinese cities between June and September 2024. After a standardized description of LLM capabilities, participants rated acceptance of LLMs in healthcare on a 0-100 scale. Survey-weighted regression identified correlates of acceptance, and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis identified profiles associated with non-acceptance. Among 35,861 respondents, weighted mean acceptance was 64.3/100 (95% CI 63.9-64.6). Acceptance was lower among respondents with chronic conditions than in the overall sample (62.4 vs 64.3) and declined with age. Higher acceptance was associated with greater perceived social status, prior digital health use, self-efficacy, stronger family-neighbour relationships, and higher eHealth literacy (β_std = 0.06 to 0.19), whereas lower acceptance was associated with older age, adverse social and developmental exposures, severe ADHD symptoms, social loneliness, and financial strain (β_std = -0.04 to -0.09). In CART analysis, lack of prior digital health use defined the largest non-acceptor group, comprising 62% of the sample. Among those with prior digital experience, lower social support and lower childhood socioeconomic status remained important markers of non-acceptance. In the test set, the tree showed modest discrimination (weighted AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.61-0.64), with high specificity (0.94) and low sensitivity (0.19). Public acceptance of LLMs in healthcare in China was moderate but unequal. Lower acceptance among older adults, people with chronic conditions, and those with fewer social and digital resources suggests socially patterned uptake. Equity-oriented implementation strategies are needed so LLM integration does not preferentially benefit advantaged groups.
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.