aceGenerative AI vs. Human Sources for Sexual Health Information: Credibility, Trust, and Behavioral Intentions in a U.S. College Sample
Limited access to comprehensive sexual health education has prompted a need to consider the utility of alternative strategies, such as generative artificial intelligence (genAI), for delivering accurate and accessible sexual health information. Although genAI tools can generate health information, less is known about how perceptions of the source of information shape evaluations of content (e.g., human vs. genAI). The present study examined whether college students' perceptions of sexual health information diffe…
Students who believed generative AI wrote the sexual health passages judged identical content as less accurate, trustworthy and actionable than content attributed to human sources, which may limit AI's value for sexual health education.
The sample came from a single university in the southeastern USA, so the findings may not generalize to other student or non-student populations.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedArchives of Sexual Behavior2026-10-19
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2009, v1: “Generative AI vs. Human Sources for Sexual Health Information: Credibility, Trust, and Behavioral Intentions in a U.S. College Sample.” Truvace, 2026-10-20. /record/TRV-2026-2009 (accessed at citation time). sha256 6e49931c6defc7b2…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2009 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.