Design and Formative Evaluation of a Virtual Voice-Based Coach for Problem-solving Treatment: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence has provided new opportunities for human interactions with technology for the practice of medicine. Among the recent artificial intelligence innovations, personal voice assistants have been broadly adopted. This highlights their potential for health care-related applications such as behavioral counseling to promote healthy lifestyle habits and emotional well-being. However, the use of voice-based applications for behavioral therapy has not been previously evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a formative user evaluation of Lumen, a virtual voice-based coach developed as an Alexa skill that delivers evidence-based, problem-solving treatment for patients with mild to moderate depression and/or anxiety. METHODS: A total of 26 participants completed 2 therapy sessions-an introductory (session 1) and a problem-solving (session 2)-with Lumen. Following each session with Lumen, participants completed user experience, task-related workload, and work alliance surveys. They also participated in semistructured interviews addressing the benefits, challenges and barriers to Lumen use, and design recommendations. We evaluated the differences in user experience, task load, and work alliance between sessions using 2-tailed paired t tests. Interview transcripts were coded using an inductive thematic analysis to characterize the participants' perspectives regarding Lumen use. RESULTS: Participants found Lumen to provide high pragmatic usability and favorable user experience, with marginal task load during interactions for both Lumen sessions. However, participants experienced a higher temporal workload during the problem-solving session, suggesting a feeling of being rushed during their communicative interactions. On the basis of the qualitative analysis, the following themes were identified: Lumen's on-demand accessibility and the delivery of a complex problem-solving treatment task with a simplistic structure for achieving therapy goals; themes related to Lumen improvements included streamlining and improved personalization of conversations, slower pacing of conversations, and providing additional context during therapy sessions. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of an in-depth formative evaluation, we found that Lumen supported the ability to conduct cognitively plausible interactions for the delivery of behavioral therapy. Several design suggestions identified from the study including reducing temporal and cognitive load during conversational interactions, developing more natural conversations, and expanding privacy and security features were incorporated in the revised version of Lumen. Although further research is needed, the promising findings from this study highlight the potential for using Lumen to deliver personalized and accessible mental health care, filling a gap in traditional mental health services.
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".