AI in Strategic Health Communication: Opportunities, Risks, and Ethics of AI Applications in Healthcare

A special issue of Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032). This special issue belongs to the section "Digital Health Technologies".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 15 January 2027 | Viewed by 1534

Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
Interests: social media effects; artificial intelligence; public health; crisis communication
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Bob Schieffer College of Communication, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA
Interests: health education and promotion; health information acquisition and professing; new media and technology; substance use
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare communication across disease prevention, health promotion, risk and crisis response, and clinical care delivery. Within healthcare systems, AI-powered tools, such as conversational health chatbots, generative content systems, predictive analytics, and automated misinformation detection and correction, are increasingly used to support patient–provider communication, health behavior adoption, clinical decision support, and public health outreach. Recent scholarship demonstrates that these technologies are reshaping how health information is produced, personalized, disseminated, and evaluated in healthcare contexts, with implications for patient understanding, trust, adherence, and engagement. Evidence further suggests that patients’ and publics’ responses to AI-mediated healthcare communication depend heavily on users’ beliefs, trust, ethical perceptions, and contextual expectations, particularly when AI systems are involved in sensitive or high-stakes health decisions.

At the same time, the integration of AI into healthcare communication introduces critical challenges related to transparency, algorithmic bias, privacy, accountability, and equity, especially in clinical, public health, and crisis settings where misinformation, uncertainty, and health disparities are prevalent. These concerns are particularly salient for underserved populations and in contexts involving vaccination, infectious disease outbreaks, chronic disease management, and emergency response. Building on advances in health communication, crisis communication, health misinformation research, and patient–provider relationship management, this Special Issue invites interdisciplinary scholarship that critically examines how AI can ethically and effectively support healthcare communication goals, including improving patient outcomes, supporting informed decision-making, and promoting equitable access to reliable health information.

This Special Issue welcomes submissions that address these questions across diverse healthcare contexts and populations. We anticipate contributions from multiple disciplines and methodological traditions, including quantitative (e.g., experiments and surveys), qualitative (e.g., interviews and focus groups), computational approaches (e.g., large language models and automated textual analysis), and mixed methods. By integrating theoretical, methodological, and applied perspectives, this Special Issue aims to clarify whether, when, how, and under what conditions AI enhances or undermines healthcare communication outcomes, with direct implications for patients, healthcare professionals, public health institutions, and policy makers.

Dr. Alice Cheng
Dr. Qinghua Yang
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Healthcare is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • artificial intelligence (AI)
  • strategic health communication
  • health misinformation
  • AI-powered chatbots in health communication
  • AI-mediated crisis and risk communication
  • human–AI interaction
  • algorithmic ethics
  • trust and transparency of AI
  • large language models

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

18 pages, 664 KB  
Article
Patient-Facing AI Chatbot Treatment-Direction Advice in Orthodontic Health Communication: A Scenario-Based Comparison with Expert Consensus
by Neslihan Karaoğlan and Hakan Karaoğlan
Healthcare 2026, 14(16), 2565; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14162565 (registering DOI) - 16 Aug 2026
Abstract
Background/Objectives: AI chatbots may shape patient expectations before professional consultation. This scenario-based first-response study evaluated whether four user-facing chatbots provided orthodontic treatment-direction advice concordant with an expert benchmark and whether responses contained safety, referral, or overconfidence concerns. Methods: Forty fictional Turkish [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: AI chatbots may shape patient expectations before professional consultation. This scenario-based first-response study evaluated whether four user-facing chatbots provided orthodontic treatment-direction advice concordant with an expert benchmark and whether responses contained safety, referral, or overconfidence concerns. Methods: Forty fictional Turkish patient-oriented scenarios across eight categories were independently coded by three orthodontists as clear aligners, fixed appliances, both options, examination required, or advanced specialist/surgical evaluation required. Each scenario was submitted once to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and Gemini on 20 May 2026. Two independent non-author orthodontists coded 160 archived first responses using a predefined framework, with adjudication before analysis. Results: Inter-expert agreement was moderate (Fleiss kappa = 0.491; Gwet AC1 = 0.528). Under the majority benchmark, exact concordance was 82.5% for ChatGPT, 67.5% for Claude, 42.5% for Copilot, and 37.5% for Gemini (Cochran Q = 34.105, p < 0.001). The overall difference remained significant in the 17 unanimous scenarios (Q = 11.455, p = 0.010), but a post hoc alternative-reference analysis that adopted the dissenting expert code in the 23 non-unanimous scenarios attenuated the rates to 57.5%, 52.5%, 52.5%, and 42.5%, respectively (Q = 4.222, p = 0.238). Coded safety-concern rates ranged from 15.0% to 62.5%. Conclusions: The sampled first responses differed in treatment direction and safety coding, but estimates were sensitive to the expert reference definition. Under the tested single-date, single-language, and single-run conditions, the findings represent a conditional snapshot rather than a time-invariant ranking of model capability. Patient-facing chatbots should support nondirective pre-consultation education and referral, not autonomous appliance selection. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 2090 KB  
Article
Generative AI–Assisted Simulation Training Is Associated with Higher Post-Intervention Diagnostic Communication Scores Across Type 2 Diabetes, Obesity, and Breast Cancer Scenarios
by Bruno Manuel García-García, Bguelly Jean N’guessan-Sánchez, María Fernanda Romero-Guevara, Jazel Jarquín-Ramírez, Nallely Guadalupe Aguilar-Marchand, María Guadalupe Gutiérrez-López, César Javier Sánchez-Ramón, Ari Evelyn Castañeda-Ramírez, Angel Corchado-Vargas, Pável Eber Bautista Portilla, Ángel Elizalde-Méndez, Isis Villafuerte-Tunaal, Adolfo René Méndez-Cruz, Brenda Ofelia Jay-Jímenez and Héctor Iván Saldívar-Cerón
Healthcare 2026, 14(13), 1883; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14131883 - 28 Jun 2026
Viewed by 662
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic communication influences patient understanding, adherence, and shared decision-making in high-burden cardiometabolic disease and high-stakes oncologic care. However, scalable training models that allow standardized, repeatable practice and competency benchmarking remain limited. This study examined whether undergraduate medical students demonstrated higher diagnostic [...] Read more.
Background: Diagnostic communication influences patient understanding, adherence, and shared decision-making in high-burden cardiometabolic disease and high-stakes oncologic care. However, scalable training models that allow standardized, repeatable practice and competency benchmarking remain limited. This study examined whether undergraduate medical students demonstrated higher diagnostic communication scores after completing a structured generative artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted simulation program across three clinically distinct diagnostic disclosure scenarios. Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-arm, pre–post educational study in undergraduate medical students completing AI-assisted diagnostic communication training across T2DM, obesity, and breast cancer scenarios. Students underwent baseline in-person assessments with standardized human simulated patients, completed 10 asynchronous AI-assisted encounters per scenario using standardized scenario-specific prompts and automated feedback, and then completed post-intervention in-person assessments. Scenario order was randomized. Performance was scored live by two physician raters using an adapted 24-item, eight-domain rubric. Cross-scenario analyses included three-scenario completers (n = 56; scenario-specific paired samples up to n = 77). Without a control group, analyses were interpreted as within-student pre–post associations rather than causal effects. Results: Students demonstrated higher post-test total rubric scores across all scenarios. Mean (SD) within-student changes were +24.26 (25.05) for T2DM, +26.17 (20.67) for obesity, and +36.31 (17.70) for breast cancer. Positive pre–post changes were observed across communication domains, with variation by clinical context. Exploratory analyses suggested limited cross-scenario gain-score associations and heterogeneous response patterns. Conclusions: Generative AI-assisted simulation was associated with higher post-intervention diagnostic communication scores across three diagnostic disclosure scenarios. The single-arm design precludes causal attribution and does not exclude testing effects, rubric familiarization, maturation, or concurrent clinical learning. Controlled studies are needed to determine its comparative educational value. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop