Dataset Information

Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Conversational agents, also known as chatbots, are computer programs designed to simulate human text or verbal conversations. They are increasingly used in a range of fields, including health care. By enabling better accessibility, personalization, and efficiency, conversational agents have the potential to improve patient care. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to review the current applications, gaps, and challenges in the literature on conversational agents in health care and provide recommendations for their future research, design, and application. METHODS:We performed a scoping review. A broad literature search was performed in MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online; Ovid), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database; Ovid), PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central with the search terms "conversational agents," "conversational AI," "chatbots," and associated synonyms. We also searched the gray literature using sources such as the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) WorldCat database and ResearchGate in April 2019. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for further articles. Screening and data extraction were performed in parallel by 2 reviewers. The included evidence was analyzed narratively by employing the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS:The literature search yielded 47 study reports (45 articles and 2 ongoing clinical trials) that matched the inclusion criteria. The identified conversational agents were largely delivered via smartphone apps (n=23) and used free text only as the main input (n=19) and output (n=30) modality. Case studies describing chatbot development (n=18) were the most prevalent, and only 11 randomized controlled trials were identified. The 3 most commonly reported conversational agent applications in the literature were treatment and monitoring, health care service support, and patient education. CONCLUSIONS:The literature on conversational agents in health care is largely descriptive and aimed at treatment and monitoring and health service support. It mostly reports on text-based, artificial intelligence-driven, and smartphone app-delivered conversational agents. There is an urgent need for a robust evaluation of diverse health care conversational agents' formats, focusing on their acceptability, safety, and effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Tudor Car L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7442948 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis.

Tudor Car Lorainne L Dhinagaran Dhakshenya Ardhithy DA Kyaw Bhone Myint BM Kowatsch Tobias T Joty Shafiq S Theng Yin-Leng YL Atun Rifat R

Journal of medical Internet research 20200807 8

<h4>Background</h4>Conversational agents, also known as chatbots, are computer programs designed to simulate human text or verbal conversations. They are increasingly used in a range of fields, including health care. By enabling better accessibility, personalization, and efficiency, conversational agents have the potential to improve patient care.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to review the current applications, gaps, and challenges in the literature on conversational agents in health care a ...[more]

PMID: 32763886

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConversational agents (CAs) are increasingly used in health care to deliver behavior change interventions. Their evaluation often includes categorizing the behavior change techniques (BCTs) using a classification system of which the BCT Taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1) is one of the most common. Previous studies have presented descriptive summaries of behavior change interventions delivered by CAs, but no in-depth study reporting the use of BCTs in these interventions has been published to date.ObjectiveThis review aims to describe behavior change interventions delivered by CAs and to identify the BCTs and theories guiding their design.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the first 10 pages of Google and Google Scholar in April 2021. We included primary, experimental studies evaluating a behavior change intervention delivered by a CA. BCTs coding followed the BCTTv1. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data. Descriptive analysis and frequent itemset mining to identify BCT clusters were performed.ResultsWe included 47 studies reporting on mental health (n=19, 40%), chronic disorders (n=14, 30%), and lifestyle change (n=14, 30%) interventions. There were 20/47 embodied CAs (43%) and 27/47 CAs (57%) represented a female character. Most CAs were rule based (34/47, 72%). Experimental interventions included 63 BCTs, (mean 9 BCTs; range 2-21 BCTs), while comparisons included 32 BCTs (mean 2 BCTs; range 2-17 BCTs). Most interventions included BCTs 4.1 "Instruction on how to perform a behavior" (34/47, 72%), 3.3 "Social support" (emotional; 27/47, 57%), and 1.2 "Problem solving" (24/47, 51%). A total of 12/47 studies (26%) were informed by a behavior change theory, mainly the Transtheoretical Model and the Social Cognitive Theory. Studies using the same behavior change theory included different BCTs.ConclusionsThere is a need for the more explicit use of behavior change theories and improved reporting of BCTs in CA interventions to enhance the analysis of intervention effectiveness and improve the reproducibility of research.

Project description:BackgroundEmbodied conversational agents (ECAs) are computer-generated characters that simulate key properties of human face-to-face conversation, such as verbal and nonverbal behavior. In Internet-based eHealth interventions, ECAs may be used for the delivery of automated human support factors.ObjectiveWe aim to provide an overview of the technological and clinical possibilities, as well as the evidence base for ECA applications in clinical psychology, to inform health professionals about the activity in this field of research.MethodsGiven the large variety of applied methodologies, types of applications, and scientific disciplines involved in ECA research, we conducted a systematic scoping review. Scoping reviews aim to map key concepts and types of evidence underlying an area of research, and answer less-specific questions than traditional systematic reviews. Systematic searches for ECA applications in the treatment of mood, anxiety, psychotic, autism spectrum, and substance use disorders were conducted in databases in the fields of psychology and computer science, as well as in interdisciplinary databases. Studies were included if they conveyed primary research findings on an ECA application that targeted one of the disorders. We mapped each study's background information, how the different disorders were addressed, how ECAs and users could interact with one another, methodological aspects, and the study's aims and outcomes.ResultsThis study included N=54 publications (N=49 studies). More than half of the studies (n=26) focused on autism treatment, and ECAs were used most often for social skills training (n=23). Applications ranged from simple reinforcement of social behaviors through emotional expressions to sophisticated multimodal conversational systems. Most applications (n=43) were still in the development and piloting phase, that is, not yet ready for routine practice evaluation or application. Few studies conducted controlled research into clinical effects of ECAs, such as a reduction in symptom severity.ConclusionsECAs for mental disorders are emerging. State-of-the-art techniques, involving, for example, communication through natural language or nonverbal behavior, are increasingly being considered and adopted for psychotherapeutic interventions in ECA research with promising results. However, evidence on their clinical application remains scarce. At present, their value to clinical practice lies mostly in the experimental determination of critical human support factors. In the context of using ECAs as an adjunct to existing interventions with the aim of supporting users, important questions remain with regard to the personalization of ECAs' interaction with users, and the optimal timing and manner of providing support. To increase the evidence base with regard to Internet interventions, we propose an additional focus on low-tech ECA solutions that can be rapidly developed, tested, and applied in routine practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe high demand for health care services and the growing capability of artificial intelligence have led to the development of conversational agents designed to support a variety of health-related activities, including behavior change, treatment support, health monitoring, training, triage, and screening support. Automation of these tasks could free clinicians to focus on more complex work and increase the accessibility to health care services for the public. An overarching assessment of the acceptability, usability, and effectiveness of these agents in health care is needed to collate the evidence so that future development can target areas for improvement and potential for sustainable adoption.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and usability of conversational agents in health care and identify the elements that users like and dislike to inform future research and development of these agents.MethodsPubMed, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, and the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library were systematically searched for articles published since 2008 that evaluated unconstrained natural language processing conversational agents used in health care. EndNote (version X9, Clarivate Analytics) reference management software was used for initial screening, and full-text screening was conducted by 1 reviewer. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and validated by another.ResultsA total of 31 studies were selected and included a variety of conversational agents, including 14 chatbots (2 of which were voice chatbots), 6 embodied conversational agents (3 of which were interactive voice response calls, virtual patients, and speech recognition screening systems), 1 contextual question-answering agent, and 1 voice recognition triage system. Overall, the evidence reported was mostly positive or mixed. Usability and satisfaction performed well (27/30 and 26/31), and positive or mixed effectiveness was found in three-quarters of the studies (23/30). However, there were several limitations of the agents highlighted in specific qualitative feedback.ConclusionsThe studies generally reported positive or mixed evidence for the effectiveness, usability, and satisfactoriness of the conversational agents investigated, but qualitative user perceptions were more mixed. The quality of many of the studies was limited, and improved study design and reporting are necessary to more accurately evaluate the usefulness of the agents in health care and identify key areas for improvement. Further research should also analyze the cost-effectiveness, privacy, and security of the agents.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/16934.

Project description:BackgroundConversational agents (CAs), also known as chatbots, are digital dialog systems that enable people to have a text-based, speech-based, or nonverbal conversation with a computer or another machine based on natural language via an interface. The use of CAs offers new opportunities and various benefits for health care. However, they are not yet ubiquitous in daily practice. Nevertheless, research regarding the implementation of CAs in health care has grown tremendously in recent years.ObjectiveThis review aims to present a synthesis of the factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of CAs from the perspectives of patients and health care professionals. Specifically, it focuses on the early implementation outcomes of acceptability, acceptance, and adoption as cornerstones of later implementation success.MethodsWe performed an integrative review. To identify relevant literature, a broad literature search was conducted in June 2021 with no date limits and using all fields in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, LIVIVO, and PsycINFO. To keep the review current, another search was conducted in March 2022. To identify as many eligible primary sources as possible, we used a snowballing approach by searching reference lists and conducted a hand search. Factors influencing the acceptability, acceptance, and adoption of CAs in health care were coded through parallel deductive and inductive approaches, which were informed by current technology acceptance and adoption models. Finally, the factors were synthesized in a thematic map.ResultsOverall, 76 studies were included in this review. We identified influencing factors related to 4 core Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) factors (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and hedonic motivation), with most studies underlining the relevance of performance and effort expectancy. To meet the particularities of the health care context, we redefined the UTAUT2 factors social influence, habit, and price value. We identified 6 other influencing factors: perceived risk, trust, anthropomorphism, health issue, working alliance, and user characteristics. Overall, we identified 10 factors influencing acceptability, acceptance, and adoption among health care professionals (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, price value, perceived risk, trust, anthropomorphism, working alliance, and user characteristics) and 13 factors influencing acceptability, acceptance, and adoption among patients (additionally hedonic motivation, habit, and health issue).ConclusionsThis review shows manifold factors influencing the acceptability, acceptance, and adoption of CAs in health care. Knowledge of these factors is fundamental for implementation planning. Therefore, the findings of this review can serve as a basis for future studies to develop appropriate implementation strategies. Furthermore, this review provides an empirical test of current technology acceptance and adoption models and identifies areas where additional research is necessary.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022343690; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=343690.

Dataset Information

Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis.

Publications

Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets