Acceptance of an Informational Antituberculosis Chatbot Among Korean Adults: Mixed Methods Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is a highly infectious disease. Negative perceptions and insufficient knowledge have made its eradication difficult. Recently, mobile health care interventions, such as an anti-TB chatbot developed by the research team, have emerged in support of TB eradication programs. However, before the anti-TB chatbot is deployed, it is important to understand the factors that predict its acceptance by the population. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the acceptance of an anti-TB chatbot that provides information about the disease and its treatment to people vulnerable to TB in South Korea. Thus, we are investigating the factors that predict technology acceptance through qualitative research based on the interviews of patients with TB and homeless facility personnel. We are then verifying the extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and predicting the factors associated with the acceptance of the chatbot. METHODS: In study 1, we conducted interviews with potential chatbot users to extract the factors that predict user acceptance and constructed a conceptual framework based on the TAM. In total, 16 interviews with patients with TB and one focus group interview with 10 experts on TB were conducted. In study 2, we conducted surveys of potential chatbot users to validate the extended TAM. Survey participants were recruited among late-stage patients in TB facilities and members of web-based communities sharing TB information. A total of 123 responses were collected. RESULTS: The results indicate that perceived ease of use and social influence were significantly predictive of perceived usefulness (P=.04 and P<.001, respectively). Perceived usefulness was predictive of the attitude toward the chatbot (P<.001), whereas perceived ease of use (P=.88) was not. Behavioral intention was positively predicted by attitude toward the chatbot and facilitating conditions (P<.001 and P=.03, respectively). The research model explained 55.4% of the variance in the use of anti-TB chatbots. The moderating effect of TB history was found in the relationship between attitude toward the chatbot and behavioral intention (P=.01) and between facilitating conditions and behavioral intention (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study can be used to inform future design of anti-TB chatbots and highlight the importance of services and the environment that empower people to use the technology.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".