Utilization of Self-Diagnosis Health Chatbots in Real-World Settings: Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots are increasingly being used in health care, but most chatbots are designed for a specific population and evaluated in controlled settings. There is little research documenting how health consumers (eg, patients and caregivers) use chatbots for self-diagnosis purposes in real-world scenarios. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to understand how health chatbots are used in a real-world context, what issues and barriers exist in their usage, and how the user experience of this novel technology can be improved. METHODS: We employed a data-driven approach to analyze the system log of a widely deployed self-diagnosis chatbot in China. Our data set consisted of 47,684 consultation sessions initiated by 16,519 users over 6 months. The log data included a variety of information, including users' nonidentifiable demographic information, consultation details, diagnostic reports, and user feedback. We conducted both statistical analysis and content analysis on this heterogeneous data set. RESULTS: The chatbot users spanned all age groups, including middle-aged and older adults. Users consulted the chatbot on a wide range of medical conditions, including those that often entail considerable privacy and social stigma issues. Furthermore, we distilled 2 prominent issues in the use of the chatbot: (1) a considerable number of users dropped out in the middle of their consultation sessions, and (2) some users pretended to have health concerns and used the chatbot for nontherapeutic purposes. Finally, we identified a set of user concerns regarding the use of the chatbot, including insufficient actionable information and perceived inaccurate diagnostic suggestions. CONCLUSIONS: Although health chatbots are considered to be convenient tools for enhancing patient-centered care, there are issues and barriers impeding the optimal use of this novel technology. Designers and developers should employ user-centered approaches to address the issues and user concerns to achieve the best uptake and utilization. We conclude the paper by discussing several design implications, including making the chatbots more informative, easy-to-use, and trustworthy, as well as improving the onboarding experience to enhance user engagement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".