Cited by 17Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

What factors predict user acceptance of ChatGPT for mental and physical healthcare: An extended technology acceptance model framework

Open access
Kelly, Sage, Kaye, Sherrie-Anne, White, Katherine M., Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar·2025·AI & SOCIETY

Abstract

Abstract The rise of ChatGPT has emphasized the need for an improved conceptual understanding of users’ agency when interacting with artificial intelligence (AI) systems for healthcare. Australian ChatGPT users ( N = 216) completed a repeated measures online survey. Hierarchical regression analyses assessed the influence of demographic factors (age and gender), Technology Acceptance Model constructs (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), and extended variables (trust, privacy concerns) on users' behavioral intentions to use ChatGPT for physical and mental healthcare. The proposed model was partially supported: the findings emphasized the need to establish user trust in ChatGPT and its perceived usefulness in both areas of healthcare. Privacy concerns were a significant predictor of intentions to use ChatGPT for mental healthcare with perceived ease of use predicting intentions to use ChatGPT for physical healthcare. The findings indicate predictors of uses of AI cannot be generalized across healthcare types and unique drivers should be considered.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-025-02334-6

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kelly et al. [41] investigated public acceptance of ChatGPT (Version 4o) for mental and physical healthcare and developed an extended TAM framework to explain users' intention to adopt conversational AI as a healthcare-support technology.

    “Kelly et al. [41] investigated public acceptance of ChatGPT (Version 4o) for mental and physical healthcare and developed an extended TAM framework to explain users’ intention to adopt conversational AI as a healthcare-support technology.”

    From Advancing Undergraduate Student Mental Healthcare of Social Anxiety Disorder: Evaluating the Acceptance of AR-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through TAM-Based Constructs. (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    Section 2.1 says the study used an extended TAM to predict intentions to use ChatGPT for mental and physical healthcare. Sections 3.1 and 3.3 describe an Australian convenience sample of people who had used ChatGPT, rather than the public at large. The copy does not identify the ChatGPT version studied as 4o (searched: GPT-4o and version). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Alhashmi SFS, Salloum SA, Abdallah S (2020) Critical success factors for implementing artificial intelligence (AI) projects in Dubai Government United Arab Emirates (UAE) health sector: applying the extended technology acceptance model (TAM) [Conference Paper]. Advances In Intelligent Systems And Computing, Cairo, Egypt. https:// www. scopus. com/ inward/ record. uri? eid=2-s2.0- 85075 59736 6& doi= 10. 1007% 2f978-3-030-31129-2_ 36& partn erID= 40& md5= 79c13 62327 0074d 1d9d0 3d753 a2b30 7f
  2. Carlini N, Tramer F, Wallace E, Jagielski M, Herbert-Voss A, Lee K, Roberts A, Brown TB, Song D, Erlingsson U (2021) Extract- ing training data from large language models. USENIX Security Symposium, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. https:// www. usenix. org/ system/ files/ sec21-carli ni-extra cting. pdf Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (2022) Public attitudes to data and AI: tracker survey. Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/ public-attit udes-to- data-and-ai-track er-survey
  3. Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically test- ing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doc- toral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 1721.1/ 15192
  4. Demartini G, Mizzaro S, Spina D (2020) Human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence for fighting online misinformation: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Data Eng Bull 43(3):65-74
  5. Stahl BC, Wright D (2018) Ethics and privacy in AI and big data: implementing responsible research and innovation. IEEE Secur Priv 16(3):26-33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 36373 72 · DOI
  6. pub2 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Floruss J, Vahlpahl N (2020) Artificial intelligence in health- care: Acceptance of ai-based support systems by healthcare professionals [Master's thesis, Jonkoping University]. https:// www. divap ortal. org/ smash/ get/ diva2: 14332 98/ FULLT EXT01. pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelly, S., Kaye, S.-A., White, K. M., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Kelly, Sage
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2025-05-03
Volume
40
Issue
8
Pages
6257-6275
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
OpenAlex
W4410052757
Cited by
17
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 2
FWCI
4.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Queensland University of Technology
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
ChatGPT, user acceptance, technology acceptance model, extended technology acceptance model, mental health services, trust in AI, privacy concerns, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, behavioral intention, generative AI in healthcare, user agency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review