Examining Patient Engagement in Chatbot Development Approaches for Healthy Lifestyle and Mental Wellness Interventions: Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chatbots are growing in popularity as they offer a range of potential benefits to end users and service providers. OBJECTIVE: Our scoping review aimed to explore studies that used 2-way chatbots to support healthy eating, physical activity, and mental wellness interventions. Our objectives were to report the nontechnical (eg, unrelated to software development) approaches for chatbot development and to examine the level of patient engagement in these reported approaches. METHODS: Our team conducted a scoping review following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Nine electronic databases were searched in July 2022. Studies were selected based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were then extracted and patient involvement was assessed. RESULTS: 16 studies were included in this review. We report several approaches to chatbot development, assess patient involvement where possible, and reveal the limited detail available on reporting of patient involvement in the chatbot implementation process. The reported approaches for development included: collaboration with knowledge experts, co-design workshops, patient interviews, prototype testing, the Wizard of Oz (WoZ) procedure, and literature review. Reporting of patient involvement in development was limited; only 3 of the 16 included studies contained sufficient information to evaluate patient engagement using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public (GRIPP2). CONCLUSIONS: The approaches reported in this review and the identified limitations can guide the inclusion of patient engagement and the improved documentation of engagement in the chatbot development process for future health care research. Given the importance of end user involvement in chatbot development, we hope that future research will more systematically report on chatbot development and more consistently and actively engage patients in the codevelopment process.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it