A Motivational Interviewing Chatbot With Generative Reflections for Increasing Readiness to Quit Smoking: Iterative Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The motivational interviewing (MI) approach has been shown to help move ambivalent smokers toward the decision to quit smoking. There have been several attempts to broaden access to MI through text-based chatbots. These typically use scripted responses to client statements, but such nonspecific responses have been shown to reduce effectiveness. Recent advances in natural language processing provide a new way to create responses that are specific to a client's statements, using a generative language model. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to design, evolve, and measure the effectiveness of a chatbot system that can guide ambivalent people who smoke toward the decision to quit smoking with MI-style generative reflections. METHODS: Over time, 4 different MI chatbot versions were evolved, and each version was tested with a separate group of ambivalent smokers. A total of 349 smokers were recruited through a web-based recruitment platform. The first chatbot version only asked questions without reflections on the answers. The second version asked the questions and provided reflections with an initial version of the reflection generator. The third version used an improved reflection generator, and the fourth version added extended interaction on some of the questions. Participants' readiness to quit was measured before the conversation and 1 week later using an 11-point scale that measured 3 attributes related to smoking cessation: readiness, confidence, and importance. The number of quit attempts made in the week before the conversation and the week after was surveyed; in addition, participants rated the perceived empathy of the chatbot. The main body of the conversation consists of 5 scripted questions, responses from participants, and (for 3 of the 4 versions) generated reflections. A pretrained transformer-based neural network was fine-tuned on examples of high-quality reflections to generate MI reflections. RESULTS: The increase in average confidence using the nongenerative version was 1.0 (SD 2.0; P=.001), whereas for the 3 generative versions, the increases ranged from 1.2 to 1.3 (SD 2.0-2.3; P<.001). The extended conversation with improved generative reflections was the only version associated with a significant increase in average importance (0.7, SD 2.0; P<.001) and readiness (0.4, SD 1.7; P=.01). The enhanced reflection and extended conversations exhibited significantly better perceived empathy than the nongenerative conversation (P=.02 and P=.004, respectively). The number of quit attempts did not significantly change between the week before the conversation and the week after across all 4 conversations. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that generative reflections increase the impact of a conversation on readiness to quit smoking 1 week later, although a significant portion of the impact seen so far can be achieved by only asking questions without the reflections. These results support further evolution of the chatbot conversation and can serve as a basis for comparison against more advanced versions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».