Skip to content
Open access

Evaluating Healthcare Provider and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Messages from a Health System Using the CREATE TRUST Framework.

Jul 2026 · Journal of health communication · pp. 1-10 · 0 citations · 43 references
Medicine

TL;DR

Compared responses from healthcare providers and two AI chatbots to complex clinical questions, HCPs excel in authentic, tailored communication, while chatbots provide more empathic and referenced responses.

Abstract

Integration of artificial intelligence chatbots into healthcare requires rigorous, patient-centered evaluation. This study implements the CREATE TRUST framework-a novel tool evaluating both clinical substance and communication style-to compare responses from healthcare providers (HCPs) and two AI chatbots (GPT-4, Mixtral) to complex clinical questions. In this cross-sectional study, 189 real-world clinical messages from patients with cancer were retrospectively collected from an electronic health record. Anonymized and randomly ordered responses from the HCP, GPT-4, and Mixtral were blindly evaluated in triplicate by a team of oncologists. Evaluators rated each response on every attribute of CREATE TRUST (Correct, Referenced, Empathic, Authentic, Thorough, Engaging, Tailored, Respectful, Understandable, Safe) and provided an overall preference ranking. While HCP responses were ranked first most often (46% of evaluations), there was no significant difference in the overall CREATE TRUST score between HCPs (mean=28.9), GPT-4 (28.4), and Mixtral (28.1). HCPs performed significantly better on Authentic and Tailored. Chatbots scored higher on Empathic and Referenced. Performance was comparable for all other attributes. HCPs demonstrated greater performance variability, authoring a higher proportion of both high- and low-quality responses. HCPs and AI chatbots exhibit comparable overall quality but possess distinct, complementary strengths. HCPs excel in authentic, tailored communication, while chatbots provide more empathic and referenced responses. These findings suggest potential for a synergistic workflow where AI could enhance human-authored messages, improving targeted aspects of communication and mitigating low-quality responses.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access Sep 2026

Quality and Readability of Four AI Chatbots Answering Search-Derived Patient Questions About Primary Aldosteronism: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

Highlights What are the main findings? Instrument-based information-quality scores differed among the tested chatbot configurations, but these differences do not establish greater factual accuracy, guideline concordance, or clinical superiority; the full-set DISCERN comparison was limited because most questions were no...

Jian-Yu Chen, Zai-Han Zhao, Shang-Yu Han et al. · 0 citations
Open access Oct 2026

Generative AI chatbots as sources of phimosis-related consumer health information: a cross-sectional comparison of quality, source transparency, and readability

Publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence chatbot products are increasingly used for sensitive health questions, but the quality, source transparency, and readability of phimosis-related information remain uncertain. We conducted an internet-based cross-sectional comparative study on 1 July 2026...

Qing-Hua Luo, Lei-Hua Cao, Pan Ding · 0 citations
Open access Oct 2026

Benchmarking Generative AI Chatbots in Preventive Medicine: A Comparative Analysis of Accuracy, Completeness, and Inter-Rater Reliability

Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used for healthcare information retrieval, education, and clinical support; however, concerns remain regarding the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated information in preventive medicine, where evidence-based recommendations, epidemiolog...

Nojoud Zoraib Alshahrani, A. Alsabaani, Ali Hassan Almaqsudi et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Safety and quality of public chatbots for lung cancer prognostic information: a comparative evaluation

Public-facing chatbots may support general patient education but should not replace individualized clinician-led prognostic communication as public-facing chatbots differed substantially in safety, reliability, communication quality, and readability.

Yan-Ru Jiang, Qian-Yun Wang, Liang Zheng et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Cross-sectional comparative evaluation of five large language model–driven chatbots on an expert-curated 44-question set of parent-facing questions about pediatric vitamin D deficiency

Background Parents and caregivers increasingly use generative artificial intelligence chatbots for child health information. Pediatric vitamin D deficiency is a clinically relevant topic because advice about supplementation, testing, rickets, high-risk children, toxicity, and emergency symptoms can influence caregiver...

Ping Shi, Tian Zhou, Qiao Nie et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Quality assessment of ChatGPT-generated medical information for healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic reviewv

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model, has gained popularity in medicine, although concerns remain regarding the accuracy and clinical applicability of its generated content. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, EBSCO, and Scopus da...

F. M. Tkaczyk, Joanna Gotlib-Małkowska, Z. Siudak · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.