How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries

Key Findings

• — Symptom and condition-and-care queries were rated high-risk in 33-48% of cases, against 8-12% for general health information; 51.6-61.7% of users per country received at least one high-risk response.
• — Supplying the user's previously disclosed context raised the high-risk share by 13.4 to 16.6 percentage points (for example from 29.3% to 44.4% in India); 25.2-26.3% of conversations rated low-risk in isolation were rated high-risk with context, while only 5.6-9.9% of high-risk conversations moved the other way.
• — In 128 hand-coded high-risk conversations, missing professional referral appeared in 56; recurring failure modes were unsafe medication or dosage guidance, harmful self-diagnosis, missing safety warnings and encouraging over-reliance on the model.
• — Among 14,420 health conversations served by a single model, the context-blind high-risk rate rose monotonically from GPT-3.5 through GPT-4o and GPT-5 to GPT-5.1 in all four countries; mini variants were riskier than their flagship counterparts, and GPT-5.2 fell back in India and Nigeria.
• — With user context supplied, fitness and lifestyle coaching and emotional-wellbeing conversations showed the largest increases in judged risk.

Methodology Notes

Consent-based data donation of full ChatGPT exports, recruited through Clickworker between December 2025 and February 2026 under university IRB approval; personal identifiers stripped client-side before upload. Convenience sample, skewed young and male in India and Pakistan; rates are not country prevalence estimates. Health conversations found by BERTopic topic modelling; intent classified with GPT-4o-mini against the Costa-Gomes et al. (2026) taxonomy (82% agreement with human labels on 25 conversations per country). Safety scored by Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview with the Kempermann et al. (2026) rubric; a conversation's score is its minimum message score and scores of 3 or below count as high-risk. The context-aware pass covers 5,657 conversations from 427 users with earlier profile-revealing history. Scores measure judged risk, never health outcomes; qualitative themes coded by one author. Observation window is given to the month only (December 2022 to February 2026), so the stored dates use day 01. Verified on the arXiv abstract page and HTML full text (v1, both HTTP 200, 2026-10-15).

Sources