Transforming Health Care Through Chatbots for Medical History-Taking and Future Directions: Comprehensive Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of artificial intelligence and chatbot technology in health care has attracted significant attention due to its potential to improve patient care and streamline history-taking. As artificial intelligence-driven conversational agents, chatbots offer the opportunity to revolutionize history-taking, necessitating a comprehensive examination of their impact on medical practice. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess the role, effectiveness, usability, and patient acceptance of chatbots in medical history-taking. It also examines potential challenges and future opportunities for integration into clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic search included PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE (via Ovid), CENTRAL, Scopus, and Open Science and covered studies through July 2024. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies reviewed were based on the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) framework. The population included individuals using health care chatbots for medical history-taking. Interventions focused on chatbots designed to facilitate medical history-taking. The outcomes of interest were the feasibility, acceptance, and usability of chatbot-based medical history-taking. Studies not reporting on these outcomes were excluded. All study designs except conference papers were eligible for inclusion. Only English-language studies were considered. There were no specific restrictions on study duration. Key search terms included "chatbot*," "conversational agent*," "virtual assistant," "artificial intelligence chatbot," "medical history," and "history-taking." The quality of observational studies was classified using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) criteria (eg, sample size, design, data collection, and follow-up). The RoB 2 (Risk of Bias) tool assessed areas and the levels of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: The review included 15 observational studies and 3 RCTs and synthesized evidence from different medical fields and populations. Chatbots systematically collect information through targeted queries and data retrieval, improving patient engagement and satisfaction. The results show that chatbots have great potential for history-taking and that the efficiency and accessibility of the health care system can be improved by 24/7 automated data collection. Bias assessments revealed that of the 15 observational studies, 5 (33%) studies were of high quality, 5 (33%) studies were of moderate quality, and 5 (33%) studies were of low quality. Of the RCTs, 2 had a low risk of bias, while 1 had a high risk. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides critical insights into the potential benefits and challenges of using chatbots for medical history-taking. The included studies showed that chatbots can increase patient engagement, streamline data collection, and improve health care decision-making. For effective integration into clinical practice, it is crucial to design user-friendly interfaces, ensure robust data security, and maintain empathetic patient-physician interactions. Future research should focus on refining chatbot algorithms, improving their emotional intelligence, and extending their application to different health care settings to realize their full potential in modern medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023410312; www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".