Health Professionals’ Views on the Use of Conversational Agents for Health Care: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of conversational agents for health promotion and service delivery. To date, health professionals' views on the use of this technology have received limited attention in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how health professionals view the use of conversational agents for health care. METHODS: Physicians, nurses, and regulated mental health professionals were recruited using various web-based methods. Participants were interviewed individually using the Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc) videoconferencing platform. Interview questions focused on the potential benefits and risks of using conversational agents for health care, as well as the best way to integrate conversational agents into the health care system. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and uploaded to NVivo (version 12; QSR International, Inc) for thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 health professionals participated in the study (19 women, 5 men; mean age 42.75, SD 10.71 years). Participants said that the use of conversational agents for health care could have certain benefits, such as greater access to care for patients or clients and workload support for health professionals. They also discussed potential drawbacks, such as an added burden on health professionals (eg, program familiarization) and the limited capabilities of these programs. Participants said that conversational agents could be used for routine or basic tasks, such as screening and assessment, providing information and education, and supporting individuals between appointments. They also said that health professionals should have some oversight in terms of the development and implementation of these programs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide insight into health professionals' views on the use of conversational agents for health care, particularly in terms of the benefits and drawbacks of these programs and how they should be integrated into the health care system. These collective findings offer useful information and guidance to stakeholders who have an interest in the development and implementation of this technology.
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 | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".