MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409218224 · doi:10.2196/72867

User Intent to Use DeepSeek for Health Care Purposes and Their Trust in the Large Language Model: Multinational Survey Study

2025· article· en· W4409218224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Avishek Choudhury, Yeganeh Shahsavar, Hamid Shamszare

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMultinational corporationBusinessHealth careInternet privacyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI)-particularly large language models (LLMs)-has generated unprecedented interest in applications ranging from everyday Q&A to health-related inquiries. However, little is known about how everyday users decide whether to trust and adopt these technologies-particularly in high-stakes contexts like personal health. OBJECTIVE: This study examines how ease of use, perceived usefulness, and risk perception interact to shape user trust in and intentions to adopt DeepSeek, an emerging LLM-based platform, for healthcare purposes. METHODS: We adapted survey items from validated technology acceptance scales to assess user perception of DeepSeek, focusing on constructs such as trust, intent to use for health, ease of use, perceived usefulness, and risk perception. A 12-item Likert scale questionnaire was developed and pilot-tested (n=20) for clarity and consistency. It was then distributed online to users in India (IND), United Kingdom (UK), and United States of America (USA) who had used DeepSeek within the past two weeks. Data analysis involved descriptive frequency assessments and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to evaluate the measurement and structural models. Structural equation modeling assessed direct and indirect effects, including potential quadratic relationships. RESULTS: A total of 556 complete responses were collected, with respondents almost evenly split across IND (n=184), the UK (n=185), and the USA (n=187). Regarding AI in healthcare, when asked if they were comfortable with their healthcare provider using AI tools, 59.3% (n=330) were fine with AI use provided their doctor verified its output, and 31.5% (n=175) were enthusiastic about its use without conditions. DeepSeek was used primarily for academic and educational purposes, 50.7% (n=282) used DeepSeek as a search engine, and 47.7% (n=265) for health-related queries. When asked about their intent to adopt DeepSeek over other LLMs like ChatGPT, 52.1% (n=290) were likely to switch, and 28.9% (n=161) were very likely to do so. The study revealed that trust plays a pivotal mediating role: ease of use exerts a significant indirect impact on usage intentions through trust. At the same time, perceived usefulness contributes to trust development and direct adoption. By contrast, risk perception negatively affects usage intent, emphasizing the importance of robust data governance and transparency. Significant non-linear paths were observed for ease of use and risk, indicating threshold or plateau effects. CONCLUSIONS: Users are receptive to DeepSeek when it's easy to use, useful, and trustworthy. The model highlights trust as a mediator and shows non-linear dynamics shaping AI-driven healthcare tool adoption. Expanding the model with mediators like privacy and cultural differences could provide deeper insights. Longitudinal or experimental designs could establish causality and track user attitudes. Further investigation into threshold and plateau phenomena could refine our understanding of user perceptions as they become more familiar with AI-driven healthcare tools.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207