Design Validation of a Relational Agent by COVID-19 Patients: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Relational agents (RAs) have shown effectiveness in various health interventions with and without doctors and hospital facilities. In situations such as a pandemic like the COVID-19 pandemic when health care professionals (HCPs) and facilities are unable to cope with increased demands, RAs may play a major role in ameliorating the situation. However, they have not been well explored in this domain. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to design a prototypical RA in collaboration with COVID-19 patients and HCPs and test it with the potential users, for its ability to deliver services during a pandemic. METHODS: The RA was designed and developed in collaboration with people with COVID-19 (n=21) and 2 groups of HCPs (n=19 and n=16, respectively) to aid COVID-19 patients at various stages by performing 4 main tasks: testing guidance, support during self-isolation, handling emergency situations, and promoting postrecovery mental well-being. A design validation survey was conducted with 98 individuals to evaluate the usability of the prototype using the System Usability Scale (SUS), and the participants provided feedback on the design. In addition, the RA's usefulness and acceptability were rated by the participants using Likert scales. RESULTS: In the design validation survey, the prototypical RA received an average SUS score of 58.82. Moreover, 90% (88/98) of participants perceived it to be helpful, and 69% (68/98) of participants accepted it as a viable alternative to HCPs. The prototypical RA received favorable feedback from the participants, and they were inclined to accept it as an alternative to HCPs in non-life-threatening scenarios despite the usability rating falling below the acceptable threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Based on participants' feedback, we recommend further development of the RA with improved automation and emotional support, ability to provide information, tracking, and specific recommendations.
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 | 0.080 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".