The Development and Use of Chatbots in Public Health: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chatbots are computer programs that present a conversation-like interface through which people can access information and services. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven a substantial increase in the use of chatbots to support and complement traditional health care systems. However, despite the uptake in their use, evidence to support the development and deployment of chatbots in public health remains limited. Recent reviews have focused on the use of chatbots during the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of conversational agents in health care more generally. This paper complements this research and addresses a gap in the literature by assessing the breadth and scope of research evidence for the use of chatbots across the domain of public health. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review had 3 main objectives: (1) to identify the application domains in public health in which there is the most evidence for the development and use of chatbots; (2) to identify the types of chatbots that are being deployed in these domains; and (3) to ascertain the methods and methodologies by which chatbots are being evaluated in public health applications. This paper explored the implications for future research on the development and deployment of chatbots in public health in light of the analysis of the evidence for their use. METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews, relevant studies were identified through searches conducted in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Open Grey databases from mid-June to August 2021. Studies were included if they used or evaluated chatbots for the purpose of prevention or intervention and for which the evidence showed a demonstrable health impact. RESULTS: Of the 1506 studies identified, 32 were included in the review. The results show a substantial increase in the interest of chatbots in the past few years, shortly before the pandemic. Half (16/32, 50%) of the research evaluated chatbots applied to mental health or COVID-19. The studies suggest promise in the application of chatbots, especially to easily automated and repetitive tasks, but overall, the evidence for the efficacy of chatbots for prevention and intervention across all domains is limited at present. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to fully understand the effectiveness of using chatbots in public health. Concerns with the clinical, legal, and ethical aspects of the use of chatbots for health care are well founded given the speed with which they have been adopted in practice. Future research on their use should address these concerns through the development of expertise and best practices specific to public health, including a greater focus on user experience.
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 | 0.044 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".