Preliminary Evaluation of a Conversational Agent to Support Self-management of Individuals Living With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Interview Study With Clinical Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious public health concern. However, individuals with PTSD often do not have access to adequate treatment. A conversational agent (CA) can help to bridge the treatment gap by providing interactive and timely interventions at scale. Toward this goal, we have developed PTSDialogue-a CA to support the self-management of individuals living with PTSD. PTSDialogue is designed to be highly interactive (eg, brief questions, ability to specify preferences, and quick turn-taking) and supports social presence to promote user engagement and sustain adherence. It includes a range of support features, including psychoeducation, assessment tools, and several symptom management tools. OBJECTIVE: This paper focuses on the preliminary evaluation of PTSDialogue from clinical experts. Given that PTSDialogue focuses on a vulnerable population, it is critical to establish its usability and acceptance with clinical experts before deployment. Expert feedback is also important to ensure user safety and effective risk management in CAs aiming to support individuals living with PTSD. METHODS: We conducted remote, one-on-one, semistructured interviews with clinical experts (N=10) to gather insight into the use of CAs. All participants have completed their doctoral degrees and have prior experience in PTSD care. The web-based PTSDialogue prototype was then shared with the participant so that they could interact with different functionalities and features. We encouraged them to "think aloud" as they interacted with the prototype. Participants also shared their screens throughout the interaction session. A semistructured interview script was also used to gather insights and feedback from the participants. The sample size is consistent with that of prior works. We analyzed interview data using a qualitative interpretivist approach resulting in a bottom-up thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our data establish the feasibility and acceptance of PTSDialogue, a supportive tool for individuals with PTSD. Most participants agreed that PTSDialogue could be useful for supporting self-management of individuals with PTSD. We have also assessed how features, functionalities, and interactions in PTSDialogue can support different self-management needs and strategies for this population. These data were then used to identify design requirements and guidelines for a CA aiming to support individuals with PTSD. Experts specifically noted the importance of empathetic and tailored CA interactions for effective PTSD self-management. They also suggested steps to ensure safe and engaging interactions with PTSDialogue. CONCLUSIONS: Based on interviews with experts, we have provided design recommendations for future CAs aiming to support vulnerable populations. The study suggests that well-designed CAs have the potential to reshape effective intervention delivery and help address the treatment gap in mental health.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".