Evidence of Human-Level Bonds Established With a Digital Conversational Agent: Cross-sectional, Retrospective Observational Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are far more patients in mental distress than there is time available for mental health professionals to support them. Although digital tools may help mitigate this issue, critics have suggested that technological solutions that lack human empathy will prevent a bond or therapeutic alliance from being formed, thereby narrowing these solutions' efficacy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether users of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based conversational agent would report therapeutic bond levels that are similar to those in literature about other CBT modalities, including face-to-face therapy, group CBT, and other digital interventions that do not use a conversational agent. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective study design was used to analyze aggregate, deidentified data from adult users who self-referred to a CBT-based, fully automated conversational agent (Woebot) between November 2019 and August 2020. Working alliance was measured with the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR), and depression symptom status was assessed by using the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). All measures were administered by the conversational agent in the mobile app. WAI-SR scores were compared to those in scientific literature abstracted from recent reviews. RESULTS: Data from 36,070 Woebot users were included in the analysis. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78 years, and 57.48% (20,734/36,070) of participants reported that they were female. The mean PHQ-2 score was 3.03 (SD 1.79), and 54.67% (19,719/36,070) of users scored over the cutoff score of 3 for depression screening. Within 5 days of initial app use, the mean WAI-SR score was 3.36 (SD 0.8) and the mean bond subscale score was 3.8 (SD 1.0), which was comparable to those in recent studies from the literature on traditional, outpatient, individual CBT and group CBT (mean bond subscale scores of 4 and 3.8, respectively). PHQ-2 scores at baseline weakly correlated with bond scores (r=-0.04; P<.001); however, users with depression and those without depression had high bond scores of 3.45. CONCLUSIONS: Although bonds are often presumed to be the exclusive domain of human therapeutic relationships, our findings challenge the notion that digital therapeutics are incapable of establishing a therapeutic bond with users. Future research might investigate the role of bonds as mediators of clinical outcomes, since boosting the engagement and efficacy of digital therapeutics could have major public health benefits.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it