Many in U.S. consider AI-generated health information useful and reliable

Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Facebook

XLinkedInWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Survey Apr. 2025

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center

Traditionally, individuals asked health questions of their primary health care provider. Confidence in that provider as a source of trustworthy health information has been consistently high in recent years and was at 90% in April, according to survey data from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.

The rise of the internet created ready access to a second source of expert health knowledge – government health authorities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH). Although confidence in these sources eroded during the Covid-19 pandemic, relative to most other institutions confidence in these institutions has remained high, ranging from 66%-68% in April for the three health agencies.

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has added a third source of health knowledge and recommendations. Whether this source is trusted – and, if so, to what extent – is an open question, but its presence is all but unavoidable. A Google search for the answer to a health question, for example, will elicit a response led by an “AI Overview” of the search results containing a disclaimer in small print at the end: “This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional. AI responses may include mistakes.”

Although Google notes that its AI summaries may not be accurate, vast numbers of Americans are exposed to these answers and most consider them reliable, according to the latest APPC health survey. Conducted in April 2025 with over 1,600 U.S. adults, the survey finds that nearly 8 in 10 adults say they’re likely to go online to answer a specific question about health symptoms or a health condition. Nearly two-thirds of this group say they have seen AI-generated responses. (Download the topline.)

Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Survey Apr. 2025

Credit

Annenberg Public Policy Center

Highlights

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s April 2025 health survey finds that:

• Most (79%) U.S. adults say they’re likely to look online for the answer to a question about a health symptom or condition.
• Three-quarters (75%) of people who search online say that AI-generated responses provide them “sometimes” (45%) or “often or more” (31%) with the answer they need.
• Most Americans (63%) think AI-generated health information is somewhat (55%) or very (8%) reliable.
• Nearly half (49%) are not comfortable with health care providers using AI tools rather than their experience alone when making decisions about their care.

Almost 1 in 3 people (31%) who use an online search engine to find health information say the AI-generated summary response often or always gives them the answer they need while another 45% say it sometimes gives them the answer they need. Nearly two-thirds (63%) find AI-generated results to be somewhat or very reliable. Yet at the same time, almost half of U.S. adults (49%) say they are not comfortable with health care providers using AI tools rather than their experience alone when making decisions about their care.

“Despite the disclaimers that accompany some AI-generated summaries, there is potential for confusion and even harm among vulnerable individuals if they are not aware that these responses are not a substitute for the personalized expert health guidance that their health care provider can offer,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and co-editor of the book “Realizing the Promise and Minimizing the Perils of AI for Science and the Scientific Community” (Penn Press, 2024), which is available at no cost online.

APPC research analyst Laura A. Gibson added, “AI platforms are not necessarily updated in real time and may contain outdated information. Skepticism is warranted.”

Where do people seek health information online?

While most people say they seek online health information, there isn’t a single source or type of source to which they turn. The survey finds that the most popular resources are search engines such as Google or Bing, with 71% of respondents saying they often or occasionally get health information from these types of sources. Following search engines, the most common sources people report using are online web sources (48%) like WebMD or healthline.com; websites of large medical research and clinical entities (44%) such as the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic; nonprofit organizations (37%) focused on specific topics like the American Cancer Society (cancer.org), American Heart Association (heart.org), and American Diabetes Association (diabetes.org); and federal government resources (35%) such as the CDC, the NIH, and the FDA.

Fewer people report getting information often or occasionally from state or local government health sites (14%), podcasts (18%), the World Health Organization (19%), or social media sources like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, YouTube, or Reddit (24%).

Most say AI-generated health information provides what they need and is reliable

Among users who say they search for health information online, nearly two-thirds (65%) report that they have seen AI-generated responses at the top of the results on search engines. On Google, for example, this is labeled an “AI Overview,” and on Bing, as a “Copilot Answer.”

Seniors age 65 or older who say they search for health information online are significantly less likely than younger people to say they’ve seen AI-generated health responses atop their search results. Under half (49%) of those age 65+ say they have seen AI health responses, compared with 69% of 18- to 34-year-olds, 75% of 35- to 49-year-olds, and 63% of 50- to 64-year-olds.

Among those who have seen AI-generated responses at the top of results when searching for health information, more than 3 in 10 (31%) say AI always (4%) or often (26%) provides them with “the answer you need.” Nearly half (45%) say AI sometimes gives them the response they need. About 1 in 5 (18%) say they rarely (13%) or never (6%) get the answer they need and 6% were unsure.

Most people who search for health-related information don’t stop with an AI-generated response. About two-thirds (65%) say they always (31%) or often (34%) continue searching by following links to specific websites or other resources. Another quarter (24%) say they sometimes follow the links, while 8% rarely or never go beyond the AI-generated response.

Most people who search for health information online say they find AI-generated health information to be reliable. Nearly two-thirds (63%) find the information to be reliable, with 55% saying the information is somewhat reliable and 8% saying it is very reliable. A quarter of online searchers (25%) say AI-generated health information is generally unreliable.

Sharing online health information with one’s health care provider

When visiting their doctor or health care provider, few people who search for health information online (12%) say they always or often talk with their doctor or health care provider about health information they saw online. Two-fifths (40%) sometimes do and nearly half say they do so rarely (29%) or never (17%).

Among people who regularly visit their health care provider and search for online health information, most agree (80%) that their health care providers are generally good at explaining health issues and treatments to them. Nevertheless, respondents are mixed about whether their health care providers are dismissive or do not have the time to discuss online health information they bring to their visits. A third (32%) say there’s usually not enough time at medical appointments to talk with their providers about health information they saw online and 40% feel there is enough time, while 28% neither agree nor disagree. As for the providers’ receptivity to the online information brought in by a patient, 22% agree health care providers will dismiss what they bring in, but 37% disagree with that statement. Four in 10 (41%) neither agree nor disagree.

Are you comfortable with health care providers using AI tools?

Nearly half of those surveyed (49%) say they are not comfortable with health care providers using health care AI tools rather than their experience alone when making decisions about the patient’s care. More than a third (36%), however, express at least some comfort with their health care providers using AI tools beyond their own expertise/experience.

Despite the widespread unease with health care providers using AI, more than 4 in 10 people surveyed (41%) think their health care provider regularly uses health care AI tools sometimes (31%), often (9%), or always (1%), rather than their experience alone when making decisions about patient care. Over a quarter (26%) say their health care providers rarely or never use AI, while a third (33%) are not sure whether they use AI or not.

Many use smart devices to track their health data

Overall, 93% of respondents say they own a smartphone or smartwatch. Adults 65 and older are significantly less likely (83%) to own one than younger people, who range by age group from 98% to 95%.

About 6 in 10 (59%) smart device users – phone or watch – report that they use an app on their device that summarizes health information, such as steps per day, sleep time and sleep quality, or heart health. Forty percent of device users say they do not use such an app on their device. By age, those with a smart device who are between the ages of 18 and 34 (62%) and 35 and 49 (61%) are significantly more likely to say they use such an app than those age 65 or older (51%).

A majority of smart device users (52%) say they’d be likely to share some of their summary health information with their doctor or other health care provider. This includes the 3% who say they do so already. More than a third (36%) say they are not likely to share this information with their health care provider.

While a sizable number of smart device users do not wish to share their summary health care data with their doctors or health care providers, the vast majority of survey respondents are comfortable having their pharmacies send them alerts about their prescriptions. Eight in 10 of respondents say they either already get alerts (31%) from their pharmacies or would be likely to sign up for such alerts (49%).

The Annenberg Science and Public Health survey

The survey data come from the 24th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,653 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Most have been empaneled since April 2021. To account for attrition, replenishment samples have been added over time using a random probability sampling design. The most recent replenishment, in September 2024, added 360 respondents to the sample. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey was fielded April 15-28, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

Download the topline and the methods report.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for four years. APPC’s team on the ASAPH survey includes research analyst Laura A. Gibson; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research.

See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:

• Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): More people need to know how to prevent SIDS, survey shows (July 1, 2025)
• Mammogram screenings: Survey finds some confusion over mammogram guidelines (June 30, 2025)
• High blood pressure: Many Americans unaware high blood pressure usually has no noticeable symptoms (June 6, 2025)
• Measles and the MMR vaccine: Americans say benefits of MMR vaccine for children outweigh risks by nearly 5-1 (May 16, 2025)
• Raw milk and bird flu: With bird flu in raw milk, many still do not know risks of consuming it (March 14, 2025)

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

---

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

 

AI divide is hindering healthcare progress in the Global South

University of Sharjah

FacebookX

WeChatEmail

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing healthcare, enhancing diagnostics, streamlining treatment, and improving patient outcomes. However, a recent study published in Digital Health reveals that these advancements remain largely concentrated in the Global North, leaving the Global South at a significant disadvantage.

The study, led by University of Sharjah scientists in collaboration with researchers from prestigious U.S. institutions, reveals a stark disparity in access to AI technologies between high-income and low- to middle-income regions. While machine learning and robotics are increasingly used in disease detection, drug administration, and telemedicine in wealthier nations, their adoption in the Global South remains limited.

The study highlights “healthcare disparities” and what appears to be an artificial intelligence divide between the Global North and the Global South, with the path to bridging it currently fraught with considerable challenges.

The research emphasizes that the growing AI divide – particularly between less developed regions such as those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, collectively known as the Global South, and the wealthier, industrialized nations of the Global North, especially in Europe and North America – remains a major obstacle to achieving equitable access to affordable and effective healthcare.

The authors present their research as “an integrative scoping review… to identify recent studies from 2022 to 2025 describing the contributions and challenges in using AI health applications in the Global South.”

They write that their study “reviews the potential of AI healthcare applications in the Global South, where healthcare challenges like poverty, resource shortages, and disease outbreaks are severe.”

The study stresses the current advantages of AI in disease tracking, expanding access to healthcare services, supporting telemedicine, and advancing preventive care models. It emphasizes that universal access to AI is a key driver in promoting equity within healthcare systems.

The barriers and challenges, according to the authors, include “poor infrastructure, data biases from Global North-centric AI, and limited local expertise” in the Global South.

“Economic constraints, lack of biotech partnerships, and inadequate regulation further hinder progress,” they maintain.

The authors underscore that achieving widespread and equitable AI-driven healthcare in the Global South faces significant challenges. They highlight four key barriers that hinder the effective deployment of AI to improve healthcare for underserved populations: the data divide, inadequate infrastructure and resources, the absence of equitable partnerships, and the pressing need for robust regulatory frameworks.

Lead author Dr. Syed Hussain, from the College of Communication at the University of Sharjah, notes that most existing AI healthcare applications are trained on datasets originating from high-income countries.

“This leads to a significant data bias where these systems may perform poorly or even generate incorrect results when applied to the diverse populations and unique health conditions of the Global South.

“Furthermore, many low-resource countries still rely on paper-based records, creating fragmented data systems and making it difficult to collect and merge the vast amounts of diverse, high-quality data AI needs.” 

Less developed regions of the Global South, adds Dr. Hussain, lack reliable internet, consistent electricity, and a skilled workforce to develop, deploy, and maintain AI systems.

“These are often scarce in low-resource settings, imposing additional burdens on already stretched healthcare workers. There are also significant financial constraints, as implementing AI/ML technologies requires substantial investment.”

The study advocates for more equitable partnerships and collaborative efforts between industrialized, high-income nations and their less developed counterparts in the Global South.

The study’s findings, Dr. Hussain goes on, demonstrate “a notable lack of investment from Western AI biotech companies in the Global South. Existing collaborations often involve one-way exchanges without genuine technology or benefit sharing.

“This perpetuates a cycle where emerging economies struggle with gaps in STEM education, a departure of medical talent, and inconsistent government financial support for research.

Dr. Hussain underscores the study’s practical significance, stressing that AI systems developed in high-income countries must be thoughtfully adapted to operate effectively and ethically in the Global South. This requires careful consideration of local disease patterns, infrastructural constraints, and cultural contexts, he says.

“There's a critical need for digitization of health data with a focus on data interoperability, addressing biases, ensuring data security, and training local health workers in data collection.”

“Equitable collaborations are paramount, moving away from one-sided exchanges to genuine partnerships that foster local innovation and capacity building. Further, global regulations and surveillance are essential to ensure transparency, accountability, safety, and equity in AI health applications.”

 

---

Journal

Digital Health

DOI

10.1177/2055207625134802 

Method of Research

Literature review

 

One in four Spaniards allocates most of their income to housing 

Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Facebook

WeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A total of 40% of Spanish tenants spend more than 30% of their income on housing, surpassing the threshold that defines households as excessively overburdened in this area.

This is revealed by a report prepared by the ICTA-UAB, which analyzes the growing housing crisis in Spain and in eight other European countries. The study highlights how the rise in housing prices and poor housing quality are worsening structural inequalities throughout the country and warns about the progressive aging of the housing stock in rural areas. 

The National Report on Housing Inequalities in Spain, prepared by the ICTA-UAB, notes that the percentage of income allocated to housing reaches 37% in the case of tenants in the free market. As a result, energy poverty affects up to 28% of Spanish households, one of the highest rates in the European Union. 

 The report, which is part of the European ReHousin project, examines housing conditions and provides a comprehensive analysis of how affordability, housing quality, and regional inequalities have evolved in Spain over the past thirty years. According to its findings, overcrowding and poor housing conditions—dampness, noise pollution, and lack of natural light—are disproportionately experienced by immigrants, low-income families, and urban tenants. 

 Furthermore, the increase in short-term tourist rentals is displacing long-term tenants. Up to 40% of rental listings in Barcelona are seasonal: contracts between one and eleven months that do not offer rent control or tenant protections under the Spanish Housing Law. This is in addition to thousands of properties with short-term tourist rental licenses, for stays of less than one month. Foreign investment, short-term and seasonal rentals, and tourism-driven gentrification have caused a surge in rental prices in urban centers such as Madrid, Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca, and Málaga. 

 “These numbers reflect the daily struggles of families, young people, and the elderly who are being pushed to the margins of the housing market,” says Dr. Austin Matheney, ICTA-UAB researcher and lead author of the report. He also concludes that “housing should be a right, not a burden”. The rise in interest rates and inflation has once again increased the risk of housing-related debt, especially for households with variable-rate mortgages. In 2024, mortgage defaults reached 3.4%, a concerning rise after years of relative stability. 

 Housing inequality in Spain is not evenly distributed. The most affected groups are: 

• Young adults who cannot access homeownership or afford market rents. 
• Immigrants, mostly from outside the EU, who spend up to 30% of their income on housing. 
• Single-parent and large families face overcrowding and high rental costs. 
• Economically inactive groups such as students, retirees, and the unemployed, who often live in poor-quality or unaffordable housing.

The shortage of public rental housing is another issue identified. “Only 1.5-2% of the total housing stock is public rental housing, and laws such as the Officially Protected Housing (VPO) law allowed subsidized housing to be sold on the private market after 10 to 30 years, affecting long-term affordability,” notes Dr. Austin Matheney. 

Not just an urban problem 

Although the issue seems to be centered in cities, rural areas also face multiple challenges. The aging of the housing stock, lack of infrastructure, and demographic decline make rural life difficult, especially for older people. In these areas, energy inefficiency is a major concern, increasing utility costs and contributing to the growing rate of energy poverty in Spain. 

 Environmental inequalities also affect the most vulnerable. In old buildings with poor insulation, families face cold winters, dampness, and high electricity bills. Nearly 1 in 5 Spanish households cannot keep their homes warm. 

 The authors argue that solving the housing crisis in Spain will require coordinated, multi-level reforms. Their main recommendations include: the need to expand public rental housing, especially in urban centers, and to reform tax incentives to discourage speculation while promoting long-term rentals. In addition, old housing should be renovated to improve energy efficiency, supported by technical and financial assistance. It is also urgent to regulate short-term rentals, particularly in high-demand areas, and to provide targeted subsidies for vulnerable households. Lastly, it is essential to develop regional strategies that address disparities between urban and rural areas. 

 Spain's current National Energy and Climate Plan (2021–2030) offers a starting point, aiming to improve the energy efficiency of 1.5 million homes by 2030. However, implementation must be accelerated and made more accessible to those who need it most, the report notes. 

Titled “Contextualized analysis of the housing situation – Papers on (sub)national trends”, this publication also explores shared pressures and country-specific dynamics. In Austria, the strong tradition of public housing remains key to affordability. In Hungary, the high level of private ownership and limited public intervention are generating growing inequalities. In France, historical socio-spatial divisions are reflected in the concentration of social housing in certain urban neighborhoods. In Italy, tourism pressures and heritage conservation policies strongly impact local housing markets. 

In Norway, despite its strong welfare state, urban areas also face increasing difficulties in accessing housing. In Poland, there are sharp contrasts between declining towns and revitalized cities like Warsaw. In Switzerland, urban planning and the high number of tenants significantly influence housing access. Lastly, in the United Kingdom, the lack of social housing and evictions resulting from redevelopment are exacerbating problems of access to affordable housing.  

Article reference: ReHousIn 

 

“Science and the humanities in the crosshairs”

DFG Annual Meeting focuses on the growing global threat to freedom of research. 

DFG Press Release no. 16

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

BlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

The steadily increasing global attacks on science and the humanities as well as on freedom of research were the dominant theme of the annual meeting of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) in Hamburg. In discussions over the course of the three-day meeting, the statutory bodies of Germany’s largest research funding organisation and central organisation for the self-governance of science and the humanities focused in particular on the situation in the United States following the return of the Trump administration, as well as anti-intellectual currents in other countries, including Germany. 

 

In addition to the consequences for research and the researchers in the countries concerned – and for international academic collaboration more broadly – the debate also centred on possible support measures and mechanisms of resistance. One key question was how the German research system itself can become more resilient in the face of mounting threats.

 

Speaking in Hamburg, DFG President Professor Dr. Katja Becker described the situation in the United States as a “war on science”. In her address at the ceremonial event held as part of the annual meeting, Becker told an audience of approximately 400 guests from academia, politics and society: “Democracy, and science and the humanities are in the crosshairs. Funding cuts, the manipulation of law and the imposition of ideology are being systematically deployed to bring down autonomous individuals who think independently.” However, Becker also emphasised that targeted attacks on freedom of research are currently being observed in many other countries around the world: “Together with hostility towards the judiciary and the free press, these tactics serve to consolidate power through autocratic means.”

 

Focus on Solidarity, Support and Resilience

 

The research community must not remain passive in the face of these developments, said the DFG President: “Now is the time to stand up and take a stand!” She stressed that solidarity must also take concrete form – such as through the DFG’s own support measures, which include additional research agreements with affected organisations, joint publications, data-sharing initiatives and invitations to conferences involving at-risk researchers.

 

The DFG also plans to take part in the new German federal government’s proposed “1000 Köpfe plus” initiative, which aims to enable leading international researchers who are prevented from continuing their work in their home countries or institutions to pursue their research independently in Germany. At the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the DFG Senate and Joint Committee resolved in Hamburg to make such support possible in principle through both individual and collaborative funding programmes. Details of the scheme are to be elaborated in the coming weeks. “This initiative comes at precisely the right time as a means of support,” said President Becker, “and it also boosts the concept of global brain circulation.”

 

With regard to anti-intellectual currents within Germany, the DFG Senate already set up a working group at the end of March to help protect the long-term freedom and institutional autonomy of both the DFG and the German research landscape as a whole. As President Becker explained in Hamburg, this includes efforts to “close possible gateways for influencing the content and funding of research” – by strengthening the rules of procedure and governance frameworks of the DFG’s statutory bodies to make them more crisis-resistant, for instance. On many issues, the DFG is also committed to joint action through the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany – notably in the crucial area of research data security, as part of the DFG-led Alliance priority initiative “Digitality in Science”. Finally, efforts are also focused on strengthening individual resilience through advisory and support services for researchers. 

 

Meetings of the Statutory Bodies

 

Other topics discussed during the sessions of the statutory bodies at the annual DFG meeting included the new federal government’s initial science policy initiatives. From the DFG’s perspective, these signal a clear commitment to freedom of research and a strong research landscape, as well as a high level of trust in the innovative potential of scientific knowledge. One particularly powerful example of the close and constructive cooperation between science and politics was the recent unanimous selection of the 70 future Clusters of Excellence under the federal and state governments’ Excellence Strategy.

 

At the final General Assembly, President Katja Becker and Secretary General Dr. Heide Ahrens reported on the DFG’s funding activities and other developments since the 2024 General Assembly in Potsdam. Following their report, the representatives of the DFG’s member organisations adopted adjustments to the procedure and criteria for membership. Further information for organisations interested in joining will be made available shortly on the DFG website. Additional resolutions included an amendment to the DFG statutes concerning the structure and procedures of meetings and decision-making processes for statutory bodies, as well as an update to the rules of procedure for preparing and conducting elections and votes within the General Assembly – with a particular focus on election processes.

 

In the elections to supplement the statutory bodies, economist Professor Dr. Caren Sureth-Sloane (University of Paderborn) was newly elected to the DFG Executive Committee, while Vice Presidents Professor Dr. Karin Jacobs and Professor Dr. Peter H. Seeberger were re-elected for a second term. Six members were newly elected to the DFG Senate and six were re-elected for a second term. 

 

Annual Report Presents Updated Funding Figures

 

As outlined in the 2024 annual report presented at the General Assembly, the DFG funded a total of 30,944 projects last year, with an overall funding volume of approximately €3.9 billion. As in previous years, more than half of all funded projects – 16,963 projects or 54.8 percent – received individual project funding; a total amount of approximately €1.4 billion was approved for these. In the Research Training Groups, Collaborative Research Centres and other coordinated programmes, 877 consortia with a total of 11,976 projects received total funding of approximately €1.7 billion.

 

Broken down according to the major research disciplines, the life sciences received the most funding with about €1.4 billion (35.9 percent of the total amount approved), followed by the natural sciences with about €913 million (23.5 percent), the engineering sciences with about €780 million (20.1 percent) and the humanities and social sciences with about €656 million (16.9 percent); projects not assigned to a specific discipline received funding of approximately €146 million (3.7 percent).

 

Presentation of the Communicator Award 

 

In addition to the formal evening event held at the historic Fischauktionshalle in Hamburg-Altona – where Federal State Secretary for Research, Technology and Space, Dr. Rolf-Dieter Jungk, and Hamburg’s Senator for Science, Maryam Blumenthal, delivered welcome remarks – the annual meeting also featured a second festive occasion: the presentation of this year’s Communicator Award, jointly conferred by the DFG and Stifterverband. Endowed with €50,000 and regarded as Germany’s most significant award for excellence in science communication, this prestigious prize was presented evening at the Opernloft in the Old Ferry Terminal in Altona. This year’s recipient was Professor Dr. Petra Anders, a scholar at the Humboldt University of Berlin, who was honoured for her outstanding science communication in promoting reading and language skills among primary school pupils. 

The 2026 DFG annual meeting is to be held in Bonn. 

 

The speech given by DFG President Katja Becker at the festive event entitled "Science and the Humanities in the Crosshairs" will be available on the DFG website from Thursday, 3 July.

 

Following this summary, further press releases will be issued providing details of key individual decisions made at the annual meeting. Photos from the festive event and the presentation of the Communicator Award are available for download: 

DFG Jahresversammlung 2025

Additional information is also available on the DFG website at www.dfg.de/en and via social media on LinkedIn, Bluesky, Mastodon and Instagram.  

 

The full text of the DFG’s 2024 annual report (only in German) is available at www.dfg.de/jahresbericht, while a printed version can be ordered from: presse@dfg.de

 

New study highlights how perceived economic inequality undermines individual well-being across 71 countries

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

LinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

New research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science shows that awareness of economic disparity affects happiness, meaning, harmony and spiritual well-being.

A comprehensive new study examining data from 71 countries suggests that perceiving high levels of economic inequality significantly undermines individual well-being across multiple dimensions of human flourishing. The research provides crucial insights into how awareness of economic disparity affects not just happiness, but also people's sense of meaning, harmony, and spirituality.

Led by researcher Dr. Ángel Sánchez-Rodríguez of the Universidad de Salamanca, the study addresses a critical gap in understanding the relationship between economic inequality and well-being by focusing on perceived rather than just objective measures of inequality. The findings demonstrate that when people are aware of significant economic disparities in their society, it negatively affects their overall well-being and widens the gap between how they currently feel and how they aspire to feel.

"This study helps us understand that the high levels of economic inequality found in many countries are not only a matter of social justice—although they certainly are—but also a pressing issue of public well-being," explains Dr. Sánchez-Rodríguez. "Our findings show that perceiving high levels of economic inequality is associated with lower well-being."

The research stands out for its culturally sensitive approach to measuring well-being, extending beyond traditional happiness metrics to include meaning in life, harmony, and spirituality—dimensions that may be particularly important in non-Western cultures. This comprehensive approach shows that perceived inequality affects multiple aspects of human flourishing, not just emotional satisfaction.

"The more economic inequality people perceive around them, the lower their overall well-being," Dr. Sánchez-Rodríguez summarizes as the study's most significant finding.

The timing of this research is particularly relevant given current global challenges. "Our research speaks to how individuals react to one of the most urgent global challenges: the widening gap between the rich and the poor," notes Dr. Sánchez-Rodríguez. "This issue has been acknowledged by international organizations such as the United Nations, which identifies reducing inequality as a key goal for building a more sustainable and just society."

However, the researchers caution against misinterpreting their findings as suggesting that simply reducing awareness of inequality is a solution. "A major misunderstanding would be to assume that reducing perceptions of inequality—rather than addressing inequality itself—is a viable strategy to improve well-being," warns Dr. Sánchez-Rodríguez. "Objective economic inequality, which reflects the actual disparities in living conditions, is the root issue."

The study's implications extend beyond academic research, offering evidence that economic inequality represents not just a policy challenge but a fundamental threat to human well-being across cultures and economic contexts.

---

Journal

Social Psychological and Personality Science

DOI

10.1177/19485506251345937 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Mind the Gap: Perceived Economic Inequality and the Well-Being Gap around the Globe

Article Publication Date

14-Jul-2025

 

More research needed to explore potential racial, gender and socioeconomic differences in stroke treatment and recovery

Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery

Facebook

XLinkedIn
Message

 

NASHVILLE — Research presented today at the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery’s (SNIS) 22nd Annual Meeting included three studies that explored the differences in treatment and recovery options for patients across racial, gender and socioeconomic lines in a large telestroke network in Pennsylvania and a university medical center in Rhode Island.

 

Telestroke treatment aims to improve care for people with stroke symptoms who live far from comprehensive stroke centers — hospitals that offer a full spectrum of neuroendovascular care, with access to thrombectomy always available. This minimally invasive procedure uses a catheter to reopen blocked brain arteries in an ischemic large vessel occlusion, the most common type of stroke. Access to more specialized care such as this can improve a person’s chance of recovery after stroke, and telestroke programs help expand neurointerventionalists’ reach by allowing patients in rural areas to receive a virtual diagnosis and treatment recommendation at a hospital closer to home. This kind of care may help address geographic and racial disparities in stroke treatment by bringing services closer to people in historically underserved communities.

 

In two of the studies discussed today, researchers reviewed thousands of medical records to see if patients’ treatment options and post-stroke health varied by race and gender. In the first study, “Gender Differences in Acute Ischemic Stroke Outcomes within a Large Tele-stroke Network: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” researchers reviewed medical records for 7,947 patients with suspected ischemic stroke in a large telestroke network. Although men and women in the study were equally likely to receive thrombectomy, only 13% of women received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), an IV medication that breaks up the blood clots that cause stroke, while 15% of men did. Both men and women spent similar amounts of time in the hospital for treatment and received similar National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores at discharge.  

 

In the second study, “Ethnic Disparities in Stroke Outcomes Mitigated by the Efficiency of a Large Tele-Stroke Network” the research team reviewed records from 2,952 white patients and 1,122 Black patients with suspected ischemic stroke who received telestroke care. The study found that telestroke networks can help reduce racial disparities in acute stroke care, particularly in the administration of tPA and mechanical thrombectomy. Although immediate care was equitable across racial groups, post-stroke rehabilitation outcomes still differed, emphasizing the need for further research into long-term recovery and rehabilitation disparities. Addressing socioeconomic barriers and improving access to post-stroke care will be crucial for achieving truly equitable stroke care.

 

 

In the third study, “Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Stroke Network Performance and Neurological Outcomes after Mechanical Thrombectomy,” researchers at Brown University reviewed records for patients at a large hospital who had received thrombectomies to treat stroke and calculated how their socioeconomic status might have affected their time to stroke treatment. Half of the patients studied had received field triage, meaning that emergency medical services were able to assess them on the scene and immediately route them to a comprehensive stroke center for thrombectomy, and the second half were just sent to the nearest hospital and later transferred to a comprehensive stroke center for the procedure.

 

The team categorized patients’ socioeconomic status using the Area Deprivation Index tool, which calculates how under-resourced or well-resourced each neighborhood is, finding that patients of all socioeconomic levels who were able to receive field triage and immediately be routed to the correct hospital had better outcomes after thrombectomy than patients who were later transferred to a comprehensive stroke center. However, for the group of patients who had to be transferred, the team found that patients from more disadvantaged neighborhoods had a longer wait for thrombectomy and worse health after stroke.

 

According to Basel Musmar, MD, the primary author of the first two studies and a postdoctoral research fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, “It’s very encouraging to see that longstanding racial and gender disparities can be potentially mitigated using telestroke treatment. However, the reduced use of stroke treatment medication for female patients and the differences in care after hospital discharge between Black and white patients shows that we need to further investigate these issues to ensure that gender and racial factors aren’t keeping people from experiencing optimal outcomes for stroke treatment.”

 

“We were excited to see how impactful field triage can be in potentially reducing disparities in post-stroke health for people across the socioeconomic spectrum,” said Joshua Feler, MD, MS, a neurosurgery resident at Brown University and the primary author of the third study. “Finding the right uses for this important tool can hopefully cut down the time between a stroke and the treatment that gets people back to their lives.”

 

To receive a copy of these abstracts or to speak with the study authors, please contact Camille Jewell at cjewell@vancomm.com or call 202-248-5460.

 

About the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery

The Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) is a scientific and educational association dedicated to advancing the specialty of neurointerventional surgery through research, standard-setting, and education and advocacy to provide the highest quality of patient care in diagnosing and treating diseases of the brain, spine, head and neck. Visit www.snisonline.org and follow us on X (@SNISinfo) Facebook (@SNISOnline), LinkedIn (@Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery), Instagram (@SNIS_info) and Bluesky (@snisinfo.bsky.social).

###