Cocreation of a conversational agent to help patients adhere to their varenicline treatment: A study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Varenicline is the most efficacious approved smoking cessation medication, making it one of the most cost-effective clinical interventions for reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Adhering to varenicline is strongly associated with smoking cessation. Healthbots have the potential to help people adhere to their medications by scaling up evidence-based behavioral interventions. In this protocol, we outline how we will follow the UK's Medical Research Council's guidance to codesign a theory-informed, evidence-based, and patient-centered healthbot to help people adhere to varenicline. Methods: The study will utilize the Discover, Design and Build, and Test framework and will include three phases: (a) a rapid review and interviews with 20 patients and 20 healthcare providers to understand barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence (Discover phase); (b) Wizard of Oz test to design the healthbot and get a sense of the questions that chatbot has to be able to answer (Design phase); and (c) building, training, and beta-testing the healthbot (Building and Testing phases) where the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework will be used to develop the healthbot using the simplest sensible solution, and 20 participants will beta test the healthbot. We will use the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model of behavior change and its associated framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework, to organize the findings. Conclusions: The present approach will enable us to systematically identify the most appropriate features for the healthbot based on a well-established behavioral theory, the latest scientific evidence, and end users' and healthcare providers' knowledge.
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 | 0.039 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.016 |
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".