A Qualitative Study with Informal Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals for Individuals with Head and Neck Cancer on the Usage of AI 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
Informal caregivers (ICs), including the patient's spouse, close relatives, or friends, play an important role in caregiving individuals with head and neck cancer (HNC). AI-based chatbots might offer information and assistance related to caregiving. This study presents the viewpoints of ICs and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on using AI-based chatbots in caring for individuals with HNC. A total of six focus groups were conducted with 15 ICs and 13 HCPs from three Swedish university hospitals. The study uncovers a widespread hesitancy toward the intention to use AI-based chatbots among ICs and HCPs. Factors contributing to this reluctance include their distrust in chatbot-provided information, negative past experiences of using chatbots, and lack of human connection in chatbot interactions. Embracing a holistic approach is crucial when designing chatbots, ensuring active user engagement and incorporating their perspectives into the design process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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