MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213319785 · doi:10.2196/33974

Use and Effect of Embodied Conversational Agents for Improving Eating Behavior and Decreasing Loneliness Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4213319785 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lean L Kramer, Lex van Velsen, Jenna Clark, Bob C. Mulder, Emely de Vet

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)PsychologyBehavior changeMedicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyGerontologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Embodied conversational agents (ECAs) have been proposed as a promising interaction modality for the delivery of programs focused on promoting lifestyle changes. However, it is not understood what factors influence the health effects of ECAs or their use. Objective We aimed to (1) identify whether ECAs could persuade community-dwelling older adults to change their dietary behavior and whether ECA use could decrease loneliness, (2) test the pathways to these effects, and (3) understand factors influencing the use of ECAs. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted. The intervention group received access to the PACO service for 8 weeks. The waitlist group started PACO use after waiting for 4 weeks. Two primary outcomes (eating behavior and loneliness) were assessed via online questionnaires at intake, upon joining the waitlist, after 4 weeks, and after 8 weeks. The third primary outcome (use) was assessed via data logs. Secondary outcomes were measured at the same time points, via questionnaires or an optional interview. Results In total, 32 participants completed the intervention. We found a significant correlation between use in minutes on the one hand, and perceived usefulness (r=0.39, P=.03) and enjoyment on the other (r=0.38, P=.03). However, these did not predict use in the full regression model (F2,29=1.98, P=.16, R2=0.12). Additionally, PACO use did not lead to improvement in eating behavior (χ22=0.34, P=.85) or a decrease in loneliness (χ22=0.02, P=.99). Conclusions Our study did not provide any concluding evidence about factors that are linked to the use or health effects of ECAs. Future service design could benefit from either creating a functional design catering to the predominant stage in the precaution adoption process model of the targeted population, or by personalizing the service based on an intake in which the end user’s stage is determined. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04510883; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04510883 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/22186

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207