MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394746513 · doi:10.2196/56930

Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review

2024· review· en· W4394746513 on OpenAlexafffund
Moustafa Laymouna, Yuanchao Ma, David Lessard, Tibor Schuster, Kim Engler, Bertrand Lebouché

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsPreprintHealth careInternet privacyComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chatbots, or conversational agents, have emerged as significant tools in health care, driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and digital technology. These programs are designed to simulate human conversations, addressing various health care needs. However, no comprehensive synthesis of health care chatbots' roles, users, benefits, and limitations is available to inform future research and application in the field. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to describe health care chatbots' characteristics, focusing on their diverse roles in the health care pathway, user groups, benefits, and limitations. METHODS: A rapid review of published literature from 2017 to 2023 was performed with a search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian and implemented in the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Primary research studies reporting on chatbot roles or benefits in health care were included. Two reviewers dual-screened the search results. Extracted data on chatbot roles, users, benefits, and limitations were subjected to content analysis. RESULTS: The review categorized chatbot roles into 2 themes: delivery of remote health services, including patient support, care management, education, skills building, and health behavior promotion, and provision of administrative assistance to health care providers. User groups spanned across patients with chronic conditions as well as patients with cancer; individuals focused on lifestyle improvements; and various demographic groups such as women, families, and older adults. Professionals and students in health care also emerged as significant users, alongside groups seeking mental health support, behavioral change, and educational enhancement. The benefits of health care chatbots were also classified into 2 themes: improvement of health care quality and efficiency and cost-effectiveness in health care delivery. The identified limitations encompassed ethical challenges, medicolegal and safety concerns, technical difficulties, user experience issues, and societal and economic impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Health care chatbots offer a wide spectrum of applications, potentially impacting various aspects of health care. While they are promising tools for improving health care efficiency and quality, their integration into the health care system must be approached with consideration of their limitations to ensure optimal, safe, and equitable use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations226
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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