MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414452830 · doi:10.2196/76992

Exploring the Association Between Behavioral Determinants and Intention to Use a Chatbot-Led Parenting Intervention by Caregivers of Adolescent Girls in South Africa: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4414452830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Da Graca Ambrosio, Seema Vyas, Juliet Stromin, Shallen Lusinga, Paula Zinzer, Kanyisile Brukwe, Zamakhanya Makhanya, Hlengiwe Sacolo-Gwebu, Anne Schley, Laurie Markle, David Stern, Chiara Facciolà, G. J. Meléndez‐Torres, Frances Gardner, Jamie M. Lachman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Intervention (counseling)ChatbotTheory of planned behaviorParenting stylesBehavioral pattern

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While digital innovation, including chatbots, offers a potentially cost-effective means to scale public health programs in low-income settings, user engagement rates remain low. Barriers to participant engagement (eg, perceived difficulty of use, busyness, low levels of digital literacy) may exacerbate inequality when adopting digital-only interventions as alternatives to in-person programs. Objective: This cross-sectional study nested within a 2×2 clustered factorial trial that followed the Multiphase Optimization Strategy principles investigated the relationship between behavioral determinants (ie, human and socioeconomic characteristics that facilitate the use of digital health interventions [DHIs]) and caregiver intention to use a digital public health intervention, ParentText, an open-source, rule-based parenting chatbot designed to promote positive parenting, improve adolescent health, and reduce risky behaviors. Methods: Caregivers of adolescent girls (10-17 years; N=1034 caregivers) were recruited by implementation partners from a community-wide project aimed at HIV prevention in two districts of Mpumalanga, South Africa. A Digital Health Engagement Model was adapted from the technology acceptance model, the PEN-3 model theoretical frameworks, and the Theory of Planned Behavior to investigate the relationship between behavioral determinants and the intentions of caregivers to engage in ParentText. Community facilitators administered baseline surveys to caregivers during intervention onboarding. Regression models tested associations between behavioral determinants (ie, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude, hedonic motivation, habit, price value, and social influence) and intentions of caregivers to use the parenting chatbot. Interaction effects were explored to examine whether individual-level sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics moderate associations between overall behavioral determinants and intentions to use the chatbot. Results: Caregivers reported a mean of 2.85 (SD 0.79) and 2.90 (SD 0.72) out of a maximum score of 4 regarding their intention to use their mobile data and to continue using ParentText in the future, respectively. Overall behavioral determinants predicted by 76% (odds ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.72-1.81) the intentions of caregivers to spend mobile data and by 85% (odds ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.81-1.90) their intentions to use ParentText in the future. Moderator analysis suggested the interaction effects of age, paternal absence, financial efficacy, and stress on the relationship between overall behavioral determinants and intention outcomes. Conclusions: This is the first known study to investigate the associations between overall behavioral determinants and participant intentions to use a parenting chatbot in a low-income setting. This study identifies behavioral determinants of engagement for improved delivery of DHIs, considering the need to provide low-cost, scalable parenting support through digital platforms that engage parents, especially those in low-income contexts. Future research should explore methods to investigate mechanisms that regulate behavior to enhance the development of DHIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207