This paper contributes to ongoing conversations about the ethical and practical integration of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in qualitative health research by focusing on an often-overlooked aspect of research—dissemination. Given GAI’s capacity to translate complex ideas into accessible summaries, simplify jargon, adapt to different comprehension levels, and enhance understanding through analogies, we explore its potential to support knowledge translation. Specifically, we examine the use of GAI podcasts for public-facing dissemination. Drawing on our experience testing three GAI-assisted podcasting platforms—with features ranging from automated scriptwriting to audio production—we assess their affordances and limitations. Our experience with these platforms suggests that the effectiveness of GAI depends less on the tools themselves and more on how researchers critically engage with and shape their use. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of balancing artificial intelligence’s promise of speed and reach with concerns about bias, mistrust, and limited artificial intelligence literacy—recognizing GAI as a partner, not a substitute, in meaningful communication.
AlvarezA.CaliskanA.CrockettM. J.HoS. S.MesseriL.WestJ. (2024). Science communication with generative AI. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(4), 625–627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01846-3
2.
BenderE. M.GebruT.McMillan-MajorA.ShmitchellS. (2021, March). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? FAccT ’21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
BettezS. C. (2015). Navigating the complexity of qualitative research in postmodern contexts: Assemblage, critical reflexivity, and communion as guides. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(8), 932–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.948096
5.
BiyelaS.DihalK.GeroK. I.IppolitoD.MenczerF.SchäferM. S.YokoyamaH. M. (2024). Generative AI and science communication in the physical sciences. Nature Reviews Physics, 6(3), 162–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00691-7
6.
BottorffJ. L. (2015). Knowledge translation: Where are the qualitative health researchers? Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1461–1462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315611266
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2025). Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 22(2), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244
8.
BrownellS. E.PriceJ. V.SteinmanL. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), 6–10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24319399/
ChristouP. A. (2023). How to use artificial intelligence (AI) as a resource, methodological and analysis tool in qualitative research? The Qualitative Report, 28(7), 1968–1980. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6406
11.
FitzpatrickP. J. (2023). Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Frontiers in Digital Health, 5, Article 1264780. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1264780
12.
GambínÁ. F.YazidiA.VasilakosA.HaugerudH.DjenouriY. (2024). Deepfakes: Current and future trends. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(3), Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10679-x
13.
García-MarínD. (2020). Mapping the factors that determine engagement in podcasting: Design from the users and podcasters’ experience. Communication & Society, 33(2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.2.49-63
HaysC. A.SpiersJ. A.PatersonB. (2015). Opportunities and constraints in disseminating qualitative research in web 2.0 virtual environments. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1576–1588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580556
16.
HuntJ.BleaseC. (2024). Epistemic injustice, healthcare disparities and the missing pipeline: Reflections on the exclusion of disabled scholars from health research. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109837
JordanL. S. (2022). Unsettling colonial mentalities in family therapy: Entering negotiated spaces. Journal of Family Therapy, 44(1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12374
19.
JordanL. S.HallJ. N. (2023). Framing anticolonialism in evaluation: Bridging decolonizing methodologies and culturally responsive evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(44), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i44.769
20.
JordanL. S.SeponskiD. M.HallJ. N.BermúdezJ. M. (2024). “Hopefully you’ve landed the waka on the shore”: Negotiated spaces in New Zealand’s bicultural mental health system. Transcultural Psychiatry, 61(3), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615211014347
21.
KiernanM. A.MitchellB. G.RussoP. L. (2023). The power of podcasts: Exploring the endless possibilities of audio education and information in medicine, healthcare epidemiology, and antimicrobial stewardship. Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology: ASHE, 3(1), Article e98. https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.178
22.
KirmayerL. J. (2024). Science and sanity: A social epistemology of misinformation, disinformation, and the limits of knowledge. Transcultural Psychiatry, 61(5), 795–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615241296301
23.
KordzadehN.GhasemaghaeiM. (2022). Algorithmic bias: Review, synthesis, and future research directions. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 388–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212
24.
LainjoB. (2020). The global social dynamics and inequalities of artificial intelligence. International Journal of Innovation Scientific Research and Review, 5(8), 4966–4974. https://www.journalijisr.com
25.
LinT. A.ChenP. H. C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in a structurally unjust society. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 8(3/4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2022.3/4.14191
26.
MaleckiS. L.QuinnK. L.ZilbertN.RazakF.GinsburgS.VermaA. A.MelvinL. (2019). Understanding the use and perceived impact of a medical podcast: Qualitative study. JMIR Medical Education, 5(2), Article e12901. https://doi.org/10.2196/12901
27.
MarkowitzD. M. (2024). From complexity to clarity: How AI enhances perceptions of scientists and the public’s understanding of science. PNAS Nexus, 3(9), pgae387. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae387
28.
MarshallD. T.NaffD. B. (2024). The ethics of using artificial intelligence in qualitative research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 19(3), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241262659
29.
MartensP. J.RoosN. P. (2005). When health services researchers and policy makers interact: Tales from the tectonic plates. Healthcare Policy, 1(1), 72–84.
30.
McAleeseS.KiltyJ. M. (2019). Stories matter: Reaffirming the value of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 24(4), 822–845. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3713
31.
MeroneL.TseyK.RussellD.NagleC. (2022). Sex inequalities in medical research: A systematic scoping review of the literature. Women’s Health Reports, 3(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2021.0083
32.
MiyazakiK.UchibaT.KwakH.AnJ.SasaharaK. (2024). The impact of toxic trolling comments on anti-vaccine YouTube videos. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 5088–5097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54925-w
MottaM. (2024). Anti-scientific Americans: The prevalence, origins, and political consequences of anti-intellectualism in the US. Oxford University Press.
PeregoE. (2024). Translation into easy Language: The unexplored case of podcasts. In PillièreL.AlbachtenÖ. B. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of intralingual translation (pp. 453–471). Routledge.
37.
RayK.CooperJ. F. (2024). The bioethics of environmental injustice: Ethical, legal, and clinical implications of unhealthy environments. The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2201192
RichmondJ.AndersonA.Cunningham-ErvesJ.OzawaS.WilkinsC. H. (2024). Conceptualizing and measuring trust, mistrust, and distrust: Implications for advancing health equity and building trustworthiness. Annual Review of Public Health, 45(1), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-061022-044737
40.
RudroffT. (2025). The growing tide of antiscience sentiment: A global concern. World Medical & Health Policy, 17, 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.70022
SchäferM. S. (2023). The Notorious GPT: Science communication in the age of artificial intelligence. JCOM - Journal of Science Communication, 22(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22020402
43.
SchäferM. S.KremerB.MedeN. G.FischerL. (2024). Trust in science, trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about generative AI as a source in science communication. JCOM - Journal of Science Communication, 23(9), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23090204
ShawP. A.SumnerA. L.HaltonC. C.BaileyS. C.WolfM. S.AndrewsE. N.CartwrightT. (2022). “You’re more engaged when you’re listening to somebody tell their story”: A qualitative exploration into the mechanisms of the podcast ‘menopause: unmuted’ for communicating health information. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(12), 3494–3500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.09.003
46.
StrausS. E.TetroeJ.GrahamI. (2009). Defining knowledge translation. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 181(3-4), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081229
47.
SutherlandK. E. (2025). Artificial intelligence for strategic communication. Springer Books.
48.
Tang, A., Li, K. K., Kwok, K. O., Cao, L., Luong, S., & Tam, W. (2024). The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artifical intelligence (AI) in academic writing. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 56(2), 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12938
TrialH.EinsiedlerJ. (2024). The future of research dissemination: Innovation in publishing formats. MIT Science Policy Review, 5, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.ex3016cqt0
51.
VolkS. C.SchäferM. S.LombardiD.MahlD.YanX. (2025). How generative artificial intelligence portrays science: Interviewing ChatGPT from the perspective of different audience segments. Public Understanding of Science, 34(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241268910
52.
WachingerJ.BärnighausenK.SchäferL. N.ScottK.McMahonS. A. (2024). Prompts, pearls, imperfections: Comparing ChatGPT and a human researcher in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 35(9), 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241244669
YearbyR. (2021). Race based medicine, colorblind disease: How racism in medicine harms us all. The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(2), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1851811
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
