In November 2025, we carried out a survey in the GAINS project funded by the Strategic Research Council to examine how people in Finland use artificial intelligence in health-related issues. The results of the AI survey showed that 18-30-year-olds use AI tools the most in health matters. However, artificial intelligence was used in all age groups. People between the ages of 18 and 39 trust AI in health-related issues more than older age groups. In addition, men were slightly more confident in the health data provided by AI than women. However, the information provided by AI was examined critically among respondents and other sources were also sought to corroborate the information. The use of artificial intelligence was largely based on the speed and ease of access to information.
Statistics Finland According to the report, the use of generative AI has increased significantly during 2025. In 2025, 41% of 16-89-year-olds had used AI in the previous three months. The same figure was reached in 2024 at 23%. According to the same statistics, the most common reason for using artificial intelligence was information retrieval.
The main task of the survey we commissioned was to find out whether and how people use AI tools in questions related to their own health or that of a loved one. In addition, we aim to understand people's attitudes towards AI in health-related themes.
In the survey, we described AI tools to respondents as applications or programs that typically use AI to perform tasks that require human thinking. We were particularly interested in text-generating AI tools that are interactive, i.e. with which the user can have a conversation. We also wanted to focus specifically on one of the key themes, health-related issues. In our questions, we referred to issues such as medication, treatment plans, symptom evaluation or health promotion.
Young people most active AI users in health-related issues
Of all respondents, 46 per cent, i.e. slightly less than half, had used AI tools on a question related to their own health or that of a loved one. As Figure 1 shows, 66% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 30 had used AI in health matters. However, AI users were found in all age groups.
In the highest age group, i.e. those aged over 64, 26% of respondents had used AI tools in health matters. The older the respondent was, the more likely it was that he had never used AI for health-related issues. Among the different occupational groups, students were the most active users of artificial intelligence and pensioners the most passive. In other words, AI was used more by those who are likely to be more experienced in using technology and AI. There were no significant differences between men and women when it comes to the use of tools.
In addition, Figure 2 shows that people living in rural areas use less AI for health-related issues than people living in other areas. In rural municipalities, less than 35 per cent of respondents had used artificial intelligence in health matters than in other municipalities, the same figure was more than ten per cent higher.
Figure 1: Use of AI in health-related issues by age group.
Explanation: Respondents who have rarely, occasionally, frequently or very frequently used AI for health-related issues have been summarised in the “Used by” category. Respondents who could not say how often they have used AI have been excluded from the graph.
Figure 2: Respondents who had used AI for health-related issues by region
The use of AI is based on practical benefits – fast access to information is the most common reason for use
Respondents’ health-related issues were usually related to symptom evaluation or general health data verification. Common themes were pain, ailments, medication, rashes, mental health problems, cholesterol and blood pressure.
We provided the respondents with three ready-made answers on the reasons for the use of AI in health-related issues. The possible reasons we listed were ease of use, quick access to information and the personal nature of the topic or the related stigma. In addition, there was an open answer option where respondents could tell about other reasons for use.
The most common reasons for using AI were fast and easy access to information. A small percentage of respondents said the reason for the use was related to the personal nature of the topic. Figure 3 shows how among women and men, the most common reason for using AI in health issues was rapid access to information, but this reason was especially highlighted in women. Men, on the other hand, used AI tools more often than women because of the ease and personality of the topic or the related stigma.
Examined by age group, rapid access to information was the most common reason for use in all groups, as shown in Figure 4. People aged 31-39 used AI almost twice as often as other age groups because of their personalities or stigma. In addition, open responses mentioned that AI was used, for example, because healthcare could not be contacted, or just out of pure curiosity about new technologies.
Figure 3: Reasons for women and men to use AI in health-related issues
Figure 4: Reasons for different age groups to use AI in health-related issues
Attitudes towards artificial intelligence are critical, but the use of artificial intelligence also sees benefits
The results of the survey showed that there is mistrust and rather critical attitudes towards the use of AI and its answers, especially in health-related issues. 17% of respondents did not trust AI responses at all, while 69% had little or some trust. 80% of those who did not trust AI had never used it for health-related issues. In other words, the lack of trust in AI can be partly due to the lack of experience with the tool. As Figure 5 shows, people over the age of 39 relied less on AI to provide information on health-related issues than younger age groups. In addition, men had slightly more confidence in AI tools than women (Figure 6).
More than half of the respondents relied more on the answers provided by healthcare professionals than on artificial intelligence. Respondents called for human contact and empathy in health-related matters. Respondents saw that AI can support but not replace healthcare professionals. Respondents also felt that the information provided by artificial intelligence should be reviewed critically and that confirmation of the information should also be sought from other sources. This suggests that there is also criticality among AI users and that the information provided by AI was not automatically accepted as such.
Figure 5: Confidence of different age groups in AI tools in health-related issues
Figure 6: How much trust do you have in the answers to health-related questions provided by AI tools?
1017 people from different age and occupation groups responded to the survey
The survey consisted of a total of 1017 respondents. The answers are completely anonymous. The survey was conducted in cooperation with Verian Group, and through them we received the respondents and the final results. The respondents represent the population broadly in terms of different background variables. There were almost as many women and men among the respondents. Respondents were found in a wide range of age and occupation groups, as shown in Figures 7 and 8.
Figure 7: Age distribution of respondents
Figure 8: Professional categories of respondents
What did we learn from the survey?
In other words: among respondents, the use of AI in health matters is still limited and sporadic. Indeed, the most common users of AI in health matters are young people and students, who have more commonly used AI in their daily lives. However, there were AI users in all age groups. There are also fewer users in rural areas than in other areas of Finland. The use of AI was mostly based on its practical benefits, i.e. the rapid availability and ease of access to information.
However, attitudes towards AI in health matters are still uncertain and critical, but AI is seen as a potential supportive tool. The information provided by AI is also treated with caution, and the information is also checked from other sources.
Blog text: Aurora Morén
Interactive graphs of the blog: Alex Kivimäki