Feasibility and Acceptability of Chatbots for Nutrition and Physical Activity Health Promotion Among Adolescents: Systematic Scoping Review With Adolescent Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reducing lifestyle risk behaviors among adolescents depends on access to age-appropriate health promotion information. Chatbots-computer programs designed to simulate conversations with human users-have the potential to deliver health information to adolescents to improve their lifestyle behaviors and support behavior change, but research on the feasibility and acceptability of chatbots in the adolescent population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This systematic scoping review aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of chatbots in nutrition and physical activity interventions among adolescents. A secondary aim is to consult adolescents to identify features of chatbots that are acceptable and feasible. METHODS: We searched 6 electronic databases from March to April 2022 (MEDLINE, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Association for Computing Machinery library, and the IT database Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). Peer-reviewed studies were included that were conducted in the adolescent population (10-19 years old) without any chronic disease, except obesity or type 2 diabetes, and assessed chatbots used nutrition or physical activity interventions or both that encouraged individuals to meet dietary or physical activity guidelines and support positive behavior change. Studies were screened by 2 independent reviewers, with any queries resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted into tables and collated in a narrative summary. Gray literature searches were also undertaken. Results of the scoping review were presented to a diverse youth advisory group (N=16, 13-18 years old) to gain insights into this topic beyond what is published in the literature. RESULTS: The search identified 5558 papers, with 5 (0.1%) studies describing 5 chatbots meeting the inclusion criteria. The 5 chatbots were supported by mobile apps using a combination of the following features: personalized feedback, conversational agents, gamification, and monitoring of behavior change. Of the 5 studies, 2 (40.0%) studies focused on nutrition, 2 (40.0%) studies focused on physical activity, and 1 (20.0%) focused on both nutrition and physical activity. Feasibility and acceptability varied across the 5 studies, with usage rates above 50% in 3 (60.0%) studies. In addition, 3 (60.0%) studies reported health-related outcomes, with only 1 (20.0%) study showing promising effects of the intervention. Adolescents presented novel concerns around the use of chatbots in nutrition and physical activity interventions, including ethical concerns and the use of false or misleading information. CONCLUSIONS: Limited research is available on chatbots in adolescent nutrition and physical activity interventions, finding insufficient evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of chatbots in the adolescent population. Similarly, adolescent consultation identified issues in the design features that have not been mentioned in the published literature. Therefore, chatbot codesign with adolescents may help ensure that such technology is feasible and acceptable to an adolescent population.
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 | 0.070 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".