Depiction of conversational agents as health professionals: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the depiction of conversational agents as health professionals. We identified the professional characteristics that are used with these depictions and determined the prevalence of these characteristics among conversational agents that are used for health care. INTRODUCTION: The depiction of conversational agents as health professionals has implications for both the users and the developers of these programs. For this reason, it is important to know more about these depictions and how they are implemented in practical settings. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included scholarly literature on conversational agents that are used for health care. It focused on conversational agents designed for patients and health seekers, not health professionals or trainees. Conversational agents that address physical and/or mental health care were considered, as were programs that promote healthy behaviors. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Guide to Computing Literature (Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library), and IEEE Xplore (IEEE). The main database search was conducted in June 2021, and an updated search was conducted in January 2022. Extracted data included characteristics of the report, basic characteristics of the conversational agent, and professional characteristics of the conversational agent. Extracted data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results are presented in a narrative summary and accompanying tables. RESULTS: A total of 38 health-related conversational agents were identified across 41 reports. Six of these conversational agents (15.8%) had professional characteristics. Four conversational agents (10.5%) had a professional appearance in which they displayed the clothing and accessories of health professionals and appeared in professional settings. One conversational agent (2.6%) had a professional title (Dr), and 4 conversational agents (10.5%) were described as having professional roles. Professional characteristics were more common among embodied vs disembodied conversational agents. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review show that the depiction of conversational agents as health professionals is not particularly common, although it does occur. More discussion is needed on the potential ethical and legal issues surrounding the depiction of conversational agents as health professionals. Future research should examine the impact of these depictions, as well as people's attitudes toward them, to better inform recommendations for practice.
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 | 0.031 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".