Dataset Information

On How Chronic Conditions Affect the Patient-AI Interaction: A Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Across the globe, managing chronic diseases has been recognized as a challenge for patients and healthcare providers. The state of the art in managing chronic conditions requires not only responding to the clinical needs of the patient, but also guaranteeing a comfortable state of wellbeing for them, despite living with the disease. This demands mutual effort between the patient and the physician in constantly collecting data, monitoring, and understanding the disease. The advent of artificial intelligence has made this process easier. However, studies have rarely attempted to analyze how the different artificial intelligence based health coaching systems are used to manage different types of chronic conditions. Objective: Throughout this grounded theory literature review, we aim to provide an overview for the features that characterize artificial intelligence based health coaching systems used by patients with chronic diseases. Methods: During our search and paper selection process process, we use three bibliographic libraries (PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library). Using the grounded theory, we extract overarching themes for the artificial intelligence based health coaching systems. These systems are then classified according to their role, platform, type of interaction with the patient, as well as targeted chronic conditions. Of 869 citations retrieved, 31 unique studies are included in this review. Results: The included studies assess 14 different chronic conditions. Common roles for AI-based health coaching systems are: developing adherence, informing, motivating, reminding, preventing, building a care network, and entertaining. Health coaching systems combine the aforementioned roles to cater to the needs of the patients. The combinations of these roles differ between multilateral, unilateral, opposing bilateral, complementing bilateral, one-role-missing, and the blurred role combinations. Conclusion: Clinical solutions and research related to artificial intelligence based health coaching systems are very limited. Clear guidelines to help develop artificial intelligence-based health coaching systems are still blurred. This grounded theory literature review attempted to shed the light on the research and development requirements for an effective health coaching system intended for patients with chronic conditions. Researchers are recommended to use this review to identify the most suitable role combination for an effective health coaching system development.

SUBMITTER: Tahri Sqalli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7551169 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

On How Chronic Conditions Affect the Patient-AI Interaction: A Literature Review.

Tahri Sqalli Mohammed M Al-Thani Dena D

Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 20200901 3

<i>Background</i>: Across the globe, managing chronic diseases has been recognized as a challenge for patients and healthcare providers. The state of the art in managing chronic conditions requires not only responding to the clinical needs of the patient, but also guaranteeing a comfortable state of wellbeing for them, despite living with the disease. This demands mutual effort between the patient and the physician in constantly collecting data, monitoring, and understanding the disease. The adv ...[more]

PMID: 32883036

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA rising number of conversational agents or chatbots are equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) architecture. They are increasingly prevalent in health care applications such as those providing education and support to patients with chronic diseases, one of the leading causes of death in the 21st century. AI-based chatbots enable more effective and frequent interactions with such patients.ObjectiveThe goal of this systematic literature review is to review the characteristics, health care conditions, and AI architectures of AI-based conversational agents designed specifically for chronic diseases.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, PyscInfo, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. We applied a predefined search strategy using the terms "conversational agent," "healthcare," "artificial intelligence," and their synonyms. We updated the search results using Google alerts, and screened reference lists for other relevant articles. We included primary research studies that involved the prevention, treatment, or rehabilitation of chronic diseases, involved a conversational agent, and included any kind of AI architecture. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction, and Cohen kappa was used to measure interrater agreement.A narrative approach was applied for data synthesis.ResultsThe literature search found 2052 articles, out of which 10 papers met the inclusion criteria. The small number of identified studies together with the prevalence of quasi-experimental studies (n=7) and prevailing prototype nature of the chatbots (n=7) revealed the immaturity of the field. The reported chatbots addressed a broad variety of chronic diseases (n=6), showcasing a tendency to develop specialized conversational agents for individual chronic conditions. However, there lacks comparison of these chatbots within and between chronic diseases. In addition, the reported evaluation measures were not standardized, and the addressed health goals showed a large range. Together, these study characteristics complicated comparability and open room for future research. While natural language processing represented the most used AI technique (n=7) and the majority of conversational agents allowed for multimodal interaction (n=6), the identified studies demonstrated broad heterogeneity, lack of depth of reported AI techniques and systems, and inconsistent usage of taxonomy of the underlying AI software, further aggravating comparability and generalizability of study results.ConclusionsThe literature on AI-based conversational agents for chronic conditions is scarce and mostly consists of quasi-experimental studies with chatbots in prototype stage that use natural language processing and allow for multimodal user interaction. Future research could profit from evidence-based evaluation of the AI-based conversational agents and comparison thereof within and between different chronic health conditions. Besides increased comparability, the quality of chatbots developed for specific chronic conditions and their subsequent impact on the target patients could be enhanced by more structured development and standardized evaluation processes.

Project description:Background/Objectives: The rising prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions has not been balanced by a sufficient increase in healthcare providers. Scalability challenges are being addressed through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in some healthcare sectors, with this showing potential to also improve MSK care. Digital care programs (DCP) generate automatically collected data, thus making them ideal candidates for AI implementation into workflows, with the potential to unlock care scalability. In this study, we aimed to assess the impact of scaling care through AI in patient outcomes, engagement, satisfaction, and adverse events. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, pre-post cohort study assessing the impact on outcomes after a 2.3-fold increase in PT-to-patient ratio, supported by the implementation of a machine learning-based tool to assist physical therapists (PTs) in patient care management. The intervention group (IG) consisted of a DCP supported by an AI tool, while the comparison group (CG) consisted of the DCP alone. The primary outcome concerned the pain response rate (reaching a minimal clinically important change of 30%). Other outcomes included mental health, program engagement, satisfaction, and the adverse event rate. Results: Similar improvements in pain response were observed, regardless of the group (response rate: 64% vs. 63%; p = 0.399). Equivalent recoveries were also reported in mental health outcomes, specifically in anxiety (p = 0.928) and depression (p = 0.187). Higher completion rates were observed in the IG (79.9% (N = 19,252) vs. CG 70.1% (N = 8489); p < 0.001). Patient engagement remained consistent in both groups, as well as high satisfaction (IG: 8.76/10, SD 1.75 vs. CG: 8.60/10, SD 1.76; p = 0.021). Intervention-related adverse events were rare and even across groups (IG: 0.58% and CG 0.69%; p = 0.231). Conclusions: The study underscores the potential of scaling MSK care that is supported by AI without compromising patient outcomes, despite the increase in PT-to-patient ratios.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic conditions require ongoing care which not only necessitates support from health care providers outside appointments but also self-management. Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication, such as secure messaging, allow for sharing of contextual information and personal narrative in a simple accessible medium, empowering patients and enabling their providers to address emerging care needs.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to (1) conduct a systematic search of the published literature and the Internet for Web-based tools for text-based communication between patients and providers; (2) map tool characteristics, their intended use, contexts in which they were used, and by whom; (3) describe the nature of their evaluation; and (4) understand the terminology used to describe the tools.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using the MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases. We summarized information on the characteristics of the tools (structure, functions, and communication paradigm), intended use, context and users, evaluation (study design and outcomes), and terminology. We performed a parallel search of the Internet to compare with tools identified in the published literature.ResultsWe identified 54 papers describing 47 unique tools from 13 countries studied in the context of 68 chronic health conditions. The majority of tools (77%, 36/47) had functions in addition to communication (eg, viewable care plan, symptom diary, or tracker). Eight tools (17%, 8/47) were described as allowing patients to communicate with the team or multiple health care providers. Most of the tools were intended to support communication regarding symptom reporting (49%, 23/47), and lifestyle or behavior modification (36%, 17/47). The type of health care providers who used tools to communicate with patients were predominantly allied health professionals of various disciplines (30%, 14/47), nurses (23%, 11/47), and physicians (19%, 9/47), among others. Over half (52%, 25/48) of the tools were evaluated in randomized controlled trials, and 23 tools (48%, 23/48) were evaluated in nonrandomized studies. Terminology of tools varied by intervention type and functionality and did not consistently reflect a theme of communication. The majority of tools found in the Internet search were patient portals from 6 developers; none were found among published articles.ConclusionsWeb-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication were identified from a wide variety of clinical contexts and with varied functionality. Tools were most prevalent in contexts where intended use was self-management. Few tools for team-based communication were found, but this may become increasingly important as chronic disease care becomes more interdisciplinary.

Project description:BackgroundApplications of artificial intelligence (AI) are pervasive in modern biomedical science. In fact, research results suggesting algorithms and AI models for different target diseases and conditions are continuously increasing. While this situation undoubtedly improves the outcome of AI models, health care providers are increasingly unsure which AI model to use due to multiple alternatives for a specific target and the "black box" nature of AI. Moreover, the fact that studies rarely use guidelines in developing and reporting AI models poses additional challenges in trusting and adapting models for practical implementation.ObjectiveThis review protocol describes the planned steps and methods for a review of the synthesized evidence regarding the quality of available guidelines and frameworks to facilitate AI applications in medicine.MethodsWe will commence a systematic literature search using medical subject headings terms for medicine, guidelines, and machine learning (ML). All available guidelines, standard frameworks, best practices, checklists, and recommendations will be included, irrespective of the study design. The search will be conducted on web-based repositories such as PubMed, Web of Science, and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. After removing duplicate results, a preliminary scan for titles will be done by 2 reviewers. After the first scan, the reviewers will rescan the selected literature for abstract review, and any incongruities about whether to include the article for full-text review or not will be resolved by the third and fourth reviewer based on the predefined criteria. A Google Scholar (Google LLC) search will also be performed to identify gray literature. The quality of identified guidelines will be evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A descriptive summary and narrative synthesis will be carried out, and the details of critical appraisal and subgroup synthesis findings will be presented.ResultsThe results will be reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Data analysis is currently underway, and we anticipate finalizing the review by November 2023.ConclusionsGuidelines and recommended frameworks for developing, reporting, and implementing AI studies have been developed by different experts to facilitate the reliable assessment of validity and consistent interpretation of ML models for medical applications. We postulate that a guideline supports the assessment of an ML model only if the quality and reliability of the guideline are high. Assessing the quality and aspects of available guidelines, recommendations, checklists, and frameworks-as will be done in the proposed review-will provide comprehensive insights into current gaps and help to formulate future research directions.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/47105.

Dataset Information

On How Chronic Conditions Affect the Patient-AI Interaction: A Literature Review.

Publications

On How Chronic Conditions Affect the Patient-AI Interaction: A Literature Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets