Impact of LLM-supported patient education on patient perspectives and patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic review

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for patient education, but evidence from patient-facing clinical studies involving real patients remains limited. We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of LLM-supported patient education in clinical settings, focusing on patterns of use, patient perspectives, and patient-reported outcomes. Searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL identified 48 eligible studies from 17 countries. LLMs were mainly used to answer patient questions, generate educational materials, and simplify medical information. Patients generally valued LLM-supported education for clarity, accessibility, and usefulness, but raised concerns about accuracy, privacy, personalization, trust, and emotional support. Quantitative findings were most consistent for cognitive and information-related outcomes, whereas evidence for satisfaction, trust, empathy, preference, behavioral outcomes, and longer-term effects was mixed or limited. Current evidence supports the use of LLMs as adjuncts to patient education, particularly for improving access to and understanding of medical information, while clinician–patient communication remains essential for personalized explanation, trust building, and shared decision-making.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2026-09-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-03228-7
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of LLM-supported patient education on patient perspectives and patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic review

Sibo Du, Bei Pan, Xufei Luo, Bo Tong et al.
npj Digital Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Impact of LLM-supported patient education on patient perspectives and patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic review

Sibo Du, Bei Pan, Xufei Luo, Bo Tong, Honghao Lai, Jiayi Liu, Yimeng Li, Weilong Zhao, Min Han, Danni Xia, Sheng Li, Bingyi Wang, Yanan Zhang, Ning Ma, Xiaoman Wang, Hongfei Cui, Long Ge, Li Xiao, Janne Estill, Yanru Liu
article en

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for patient education, but evidence from patient-facing clinical studies involving real patients remains limited. We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of LLM-supported patient education in clinical settings, focusing on patterns of use, patient perspectives, and patient-reported outcomes. Searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL identified 48 eligible studies from 17 countries. LLMs were mainly used to answer patient questions, generate educational materials, and simplify medical information. Patients generally valued LLM-supported education for clarity, accessibility, and usefulness, but raised concerns about accuracy, privacy, personalization, trust, and emotional support. Quantitative findings were most consistent for cognitive and information-related outcomes, whereas evidence for satisfaction, trust, empathy, preference, behavioral outcomes, and longer-term effects was mixed or limited. Current evidence supports the use of LLMs as adjuncts to patient education, particularly for improving access to and understanding of medical information, while clinician–patient communication remains essential for personalized explanation, trust building, and shared decision-making.

npj Digital Medicine
University of Geneva (CH), Hong Kong Baptist University (HK), Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK), Chinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention (CN), Lanzhou University Second Hospital (CN), Lanzhou University (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.