MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388981618 · doi:10.2196/47217

Evaluation of the Current State of Chatbots for Digital Health: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4388981618 on OpenAlexaff
Jia Xue, Bolun Zhang, Yaxi Zhao, Qiaoru Zhang, Chengda Zheng, Jielin Jiang, Hanjia Li, Nian Liu, Ziqian Li, Weiying Fu, Yingdong Peng, Judith Logan, Jingwen Zhang, Xiaoling Xiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital healthState (computer science)mHealthComputer scienceeHealthHealth careData scienceMedicinePsychological interventionNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chatbots have become ubiquitous in our daily lives, enabling natural language conversations with users through various modes of communication. Chatbots have the potential to play a significant role in promoting health and well-being. As the number of studies and available products related to chatbots continues to rise, there is a critical need to assess product features to enhance the design of chatbots that effectively promote health and behavioral change. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current state of health-related chatbots, including the chatbots' characteristics and features, user backgrounds, communication models, relational building capacity, personalization, interaction, responses to suicidal thoughts, and users' in-app experiences during chatbot use. Through this analysis, we seek to identify gaps in the current research, guide future directions, and enhance the design of health-focused chatbots. METHODS: Following the scoping review methodology by Arksey and O'Malley and guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist, this study used a two-pronged approach to identify relevant chatbots: (1) searching the iOS and Android App Stores and (2) reviewing scientific literature through a search strategy designed by a librarian. Overall, 36 chatbots were selected based on predefined criteria from both sources. These chatbots were systematically evaluated using a comprehensive framework developed for this study, including chatbot characteristics, user backgrounds, building relational capacity, personalization, interaction models, responses to critical situations, and user experiences. Ten coauthors were responsible for downloading and testing the chatbots, coding their features, and evaluating their performance in simulated conversations. The testing of all chatbot apps was limited to their free-to-use features. RESULTS: This review provides an overview of the diversity of health-related chatbots, encompassing categories such as mental health support, physical activity promotion, and behavior change interventions. Chatbots use text, animations, speech, images, and emojis for communication. The findings highlight variations in conversational capabilities, including empathy, humor, and personalization. Notably, concerns regarding safety, particularly in addressing suicidal thoughts, were evident. Approximately 44% (16/36) of the chatbots effectively addressed suicidal thoughts. User experiences and behavioral outcomes demonstrated the potential of chatbots in health interventions, but evidence remains limited. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review underscores the significance of chatbots in health-related applications and offers insights into their features, functionalities, and user experiences. This study contributes to advancing the understanding of chatbots' role in digital health interventions, thus paving the way for more effective and user-centric health promotion strategies. This study informs future research directions, emphasizing the need for rigorous randomized control trials, standardized evaluation metrics, and user-centered design to unlock the full potential of chatbots in enhancing health and well-being. Future research should focus on addressing limitations, exploring real-world user experiences, and implementing robust data security and privacy measures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.502
GPT teacher head0.667
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207