Engagement With Conversational Agent–Enabled Interventions in Cardiometabolic Disease Management: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are a group of interrelated conditions, including heart failure and diabetes, that increase the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic complications. The rising number of Australians with CMDs has necessitated new strategies for those managing these conditions, such as digital health interventions. The effectiveness of digital health interventions in supporting people with CMDs is dependent on the extent to which users engage with the tools. Augmenting digital health interventions with conversational agents, technologies that interact with people using natural language, may enhance engagement because of their human-like attributes. To date, no systematic review has compiled evidence on how design features influence the engagement of conversational agent-enabled interventions supporting people with CMDs. This review seeks to address this gap, thereby guiding developers in creating more engaging and effective tools for CMD management. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence pertaining to conversational agent-enabled intervention design features and their impacts on the engagement of people managing CMD. METHODS: The review is conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Searches will be conducted in the Ovid (Medline), Web of Science, and Scopus databases, which will be run again prior to manuscript submission. Inclusion criteria will consist of primary research studies reporting on conversational agent-enabled interventions, including measures of engagement, in adults with CMD. Data extraction will seek to capture the perspectives of people with CMD on the use of conversational agent-enabled interventions. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools will be used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence collected. RESULTS: This review was initiated in May 2023 and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in June 2023, prior to title and abstract screening. Full-text screening of articles was completed in July 2023 and data extraction began August 2023. Final searches were conducted in April 2024 prior to finalizing the review and the manuscript was submitted for peer review in July 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This review will synthesize diverse observations pertaining to conversational agent-enabled intervention design features and their impacts on engagement among people with CMDs. These observations can be used to guide the development of more engaging conversational agent-enabled interventions, thereby increasing the likelihood of regular intervention use and improved CMD health outcomes. Additionally, this review will identify gaps in the literature in terms of how engagement is reported, thereby highlighting areas for future exploration and supporting researchers in advancing the understanding of conversational agent-enabled interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023431579; https://tinyurl.com/55cxkm26. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52973.
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 | 0.063 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.011 |
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".