Interactive Conversational Agents for Perinatal Health: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interactive conversational agents (chatbots) simulate human conversation using natural language processing and artificial intelligence. They enable dynamic interactions and are used in various fields, including education and healthcare. Objective: This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize studies on chatbots for women and expectant parents in the preconception, pregnancy, and postnatal period through 12 months postpartum. Methods: We searched in six electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science, Inspec, and IEEE Xplore) using a pre-defined search strategy. We included sources if they focused on women in the preconception period, pregnant women and their partners, mothers, and fathers/coparents of babies up to 12 months old. Two reviewers independently screened studies and all disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Two reviewers independently extracted and validated data from the included studies into a standardized form and conducted quality appraisal. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven were from the USA, with others from Brazil, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. The studies reported high user satisfaction, improved health intentions and behaviors, increased knowledge, and better prevention of preconception risks. Chatbots also facilitated access to health information and interactions with health professionals. Conclusion: We provide an overview of interactive conversational agents used in the perinatal period and their applications. Digital interventions using interactive conversational agents have a positive impact on knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and the use of health services. Interventions using interactive conversational agents may be more effective than those using methods such as individual or group face-to-face delivery.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".