Updated 25/05/2026
A substantial proportion of the public is now turning to artificial intelligence for health advice instead of consulting qualified health providers, according to research from King’s College London, King’s Health Partners, and Responsible AI UK. The finding underscores a profound shift in how people seek medical guidance, even as expert opinion on AI’s role in healthcare remains sharply divided.
AI substitution for professional health consultation
Proportion of population using AI as alternative to seeing a health provider, UK, 2026
Source: King’s College London Policy Institute, 2026 | Georgian Medical Journal News
A new landscape for health-seeking behaviour
The research, conducted by the Policy Institute at King’s College London in partnership with King’s Health Partners and Responsible AI UK, captures a moment of significant transition in healthcare access. One in seven adults surveyed reported using AI tools—such as chatbots or large language models—as a substitute for seeking advice from a qualified physician, nurse, or other licensed health professional.
The King’s College London Policy Institute study suggests that demographic, educational, and economic factors influence who is most likely to turn to AI for health guidance rather than accessing traditional healthcare pathways. Understanding these variations is critical for policymakers and health systems planning to maintain equitable access to evidence-based care.
Polarised public opinion on AI in healthcare
While adoption of AI for health advice is growing, public attitudes toward the technology remain fractured. The King’s College London Policy Institute study found that confidence in AI’s safety and efficacy for medical decision-making is uneven, with significant cohorts expressing caution or outright scepticism about delegating health decisions to algorithms.
This divergence between actual use and stated trust presents a challenge for healthcare systems. People may be adopting AI solutions out of convenience, cost, or difficulty accessing traditional services, rather than from genuine confidence in the technology. The King’s Health Partners team noted that understanding these motivations is essential for designing safe and ethical implementation of AI tools in clinical settings.
Implications for health equity and provider capacity
The King’s College London findings raise urgent questions about health equity and the sustainability of primary care. In jurisdictions where access to GPs and specialists is already constrained—either by long waiting times or geographic barriers—patients may increasingly turn to AI not because they prefer it, but because traditional care is unavailable or unaffordable. The BMJ and other clinical journals have highlighted that AI tools, while potentially useful for triage and information provision, cannot replace clinical judgment, physical examination, or the human continuity of care that underpins good medical practice.
The research underscores the need for clear regulatory frameworks, clinical oversight, and public education about AI’s appropriate role in healthcare. For more on how health systems are managing this transition, see our coverage of health policy developments and clinical updates on digital health.
One in seven people have used AI instead of seeing a health provider, reflecting a significant shift in health-seeking behaviour, though public confidence in AI’s medical safety remains divided.
— Policy Institute at King’s College London, 2026
Key takeaways
- Approximately 14% of the UK population has used AI as an alternative to consulting a qualified health provider, according to King’s College London research
- The King’s College London Policy Institute study found public attitudes toward AI in healthcare are polarised, with significant groups expressing scepticism about the technology’s safety and reliability for medical decisions
- The shift toward AI-based health advice may reflect barriers to accessing traditional care—such as waiting times or cost—rather than genuine preference for algorithmic guidance
- Healthcare systems require robust regulatory oversight and public education to ensure AI tools support rather than undermine clinical care and health equity
Frequently asked questions
Why are people using AI instead of seeing a doctor?
The King’s College London study identifies multiple drivers, including convenience, cost, and accessibility barriers such as long waiting times for GP appointments. In some cases, people may be using AI out of preference; in others, it reflects gaps in healthcare access rather than choice. The research did not specify which factor is most prevalent, but the breadth of the finding suggests that lack of timely access to traditional care plays a significant role.
Is AI safe to use for medical advice?
Current evidence, as reviewed by PubMed and clinical literature, shows that AI tools can support certain functions—such as symptom checking, appointment scheduling, or providing general health information—but they cannot replace clinical assessment. AI systems may miss rare diagnoses, misinterpret context, or provide outdated guidance. Regulatory bodies, including the US FDA and European Medicines Agency, are developing frameworks to ensure AI tools used in healthcare meet safety and performance standards.
What should the NHS and other health systems do about this trend?
Healthcare systems should invest in primary care capacity to reduce barriers to access, establish clear clinical guidelines for the responsible use of AI tools, ensure public understanding of AI’s limitations, and prioritise protection of vulnerable populations who may be most dependent on AI due to systemic barriers. Integration of AI into workflows should always be physician-led and evidence-based, rather than a substitute for qualified care.
The King’s College London findings are likely to inform ongoing policy discussions in the UK and internationally about the governance of AI in healthcare. As artificial intelligence tools become more sophisticated and widely available, the evidence base for their integration into clinical practice must keep pace with adoption. Healthcare leaders, regulators, and the public will need to work together to define the appropriate role of AI in supporting—not replacing—human clinicians and the therapeutic relationship that remains central to good medicine.
Source: 1 in 7 people have used AI instead of seeing a health provider, study finds
Was this article helpful?
Related Coverage
Editorial standards. This article was produced under the GMJ News editorial process, with oversight by the GMJ Editorial Board. Our editorial process. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
