Experiences of Patients With Breast Cancer Using Generative Artificial Intelligence for Treatment Related Decision Preparation: A Qualitative Study
This qualitative study of 20 Chinese women with breast cancer reveals that while they utilize generative AI to bridge information and emotional gaps for treatment decision-making, they simultaneously require nurse-mediated guidance to navigate credibility concerns and ensure safe, meaningful application of these tools.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Breast cancer is a disease that demands a series of difficult choices. From the moment of diagnosis, patients must navigate a complex landscape of surgery, medication, and radiation, weighing how each option might affect their survival, their bodies, and their daily lives. In a perfect world, a doctor would have endless time to explain every detail, answer every question, and help a patient feel certain about the path forward. In reality, clinic visits are often short, medical language is dense, and the emotional shock of a diagnosis can make it hard to absorb information. This gap between what a patient needs to know and what they can process in a brief appointment has long been a source of anxiety. Now, a new tool has entered the picture: generative artificial intelligence. Unlike a standard search engine that returns a list of links for a person to sift through, this technology acts like a conversational partner. It can listen to a specific question and generate a tailored, plain-language explanation, seemingly offering a way to fill the silence between doctor visits.
A team of researchers set out to understand how women with breast cancer are actually using this technology to prepare for their treatment decisions. They did not ask how the software works or whether it is technically perfect; instead, they asked the women themselves. Between August 2025 and March 2026, the researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with twenty women at a major hospital in China. These participants ranged in age from 31 to 66 and were at various stages of their illness, from newly diagnosed to undergoing chemotherapy or radiation. The researchers listened carefully as the women described their experiences, looking for patterns in how they turned to these digital tools, what they hoped to find, and what worries they carried home with them.
The women in the study described a very specific rhythm to their use of artificial intelligence. It was not a replacement for their doctors, but rather a way to fill the quiet, anxious hours after a clinic visit. When a patient left the hospital with a pathology report full of unfamiliar terms or a treatment plan that felt overwhelming, they often returned home with questions that had not yet formed. They turned to the AI to make sense of these gaps. One woman explained that after a diagnosis, every step felt like a life-or-death gamble, and she felt helpless because she did not understand the options. The AI became a place to ask, "What does this word mean?" or "What are the pros and cons of this surgery?" in a way that felt immediate and private. For some, the tool was a relief; it translated complex medical jargon into simple language, helping them understand their specific subtype of cancer without the fear of finding terrifying, extreme stories on the open internet.
However, the experience was not always calming. The very same tool that offered clarity could also generate new fear. When the AI listed potential side effects or recurrence risks, some women, particularly those who were older or had less formal education, found themselves unable to separate general statistics from their own personal reality. They would read a list of possible complications and immediately imagine them happening to themselves, turning a general warning into a personal nightmare. The technology did not know their specific history or their body's unique response, so it could not tell them which risks were real for them and which were unlikely. This created a burden of judgment: the patient had to decide which parts of the AI's answer were relevant and which were just noise.
The women also used the technology to prepare for their next appointment, treating it as a rehearsal space. They asked the AI to help them organize their thoughts, turning vague worries into specific questions they could ask their doctors. One participant noted that in the past, she would get so nervous during a visit that she forgot what she wanted to ask. With the AI's help, she could draft a list of questions beforehand, ensuring she covered the topics that mattered most to her. This preparation changed the dynamic of the conversation; instead of feeling passive and overwhelmed, she felt more organized and able to engage in a focused discussion about her care. The tool did not make the decision for her, but it helped her clarify what she valued most, such as preserving her body image or managing the impact of treatment on her family life.
Despite finding these benefits, the women remained deeply cautious. They did not trust the AI blindly. Instead, they practiced a form of "calibrated trust," constantly checking the AI's answers against what their doctors had said or against official medical guidelines. If the AI suggested something that contradicted their doctor's advice, they almost always sided with the doctor. They understood that the AI only knew what they typed into it, while their medical team knew their full history, their test results, and their physical condition. The AI was a source of information, but the doctor was the source of truth. This careful verification meant that the women were doing a lot of mental work, trying to figure out if the information they found was safe to use.
The study concluded that while these tools are powerful for organizing information and reducing confusion, they cannot operate safely on their own. The women in the study expressed a clear desire for nurses to act as a bridge. They did not want nurses to police their internet use or tell them to stop using the technology. Instead, they wanted a safe, non-judgmental space to discuss what they had found. They hoped nurses could help them figure out which AI-generated questions were worth asking their doctors and which pieces of information might not apply to their specific situation. The researchers found that the women were often afraid to mention they had used AI, worried that their doctors might think they did not trust them. The study suggests that if nurses can create an environment where patients feel comfortable sharing their digital discoveries, they can help turn those discoveries into meaningful, safe, and shared decision-making. The technology is a tool that patients are already reaching for, but it needs human guidance to ensure it leads to clarity rather than confusion.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.