Beyond the Waiting Room: Patient's Perspectives on the Conversational Nuances of Pre-Consultation Chatbots
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-consultation serves as a critical information exchange between healthcare providers and patients, streamlining visits and supporting patient-centered care. Human-led pre-consultations offer many benefits, yet they require significant time and energy from clinical staff. In this work, we identify design goals for pre-consultation chatbots given their potential to carry out human-like conversations and autonomously adapt their line of questioning. We conducted a study with 33 walk-in clinic patients to elicit design considerations for pre-consultation chatbots. Participants were exposed to one of two study conditions: an LLM-powered AI agent and a Wizard-of-Oz agent simulated by medical professionals. Our study found that both conditions were equally well-received and demonstrated comparable conversational capabilities. However, the extent of the follow-up questions and the amount of empathy impacted the chatbot’s perceived thoroughness and sincerity. Patients also highlighted the importance of setting expectations for the chatbot before and after the pre-consultation experience.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it