Effectiveness of Minimal Contact Interventions: An RCT

Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Chatbots, or conversational agents, have emerged as significant tools in health care, driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and digital technology. These programs are designed to simulate human conversations, addressing various health care needs. However, no comprehensive synthesis of health care chatbots' roles, users, benefits, and limitations is available to inform future research and application in the field.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to describe health care chatbots' characteristics, focusing on their diverse roles in the health care pathway, user groups, benefits, and limitations.

METHODS

A rapid review of published literature from 2017 to 2023 was performed with a search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian and implemented in the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Primary research studies reporting on chatbot roles or benefits in health care were included. Two reviewers dual-screened the search results. Extracted data on chatbot roles, users, benefits, and limitations were subjected to content analysis.

RESULTS

The review categorized chatbot roles into 2 themes: delivery of remote health services, including patient support, care management, education, skills building, and health behavior promotion, and provision of administrative assistance to health care providers. User groups spanned across patients with chronic conditions as well as patients with cancer; individuals focused on lifestyle improvements; and various demographic groups such as women, families, and older adults. Professionals and students in health care also emerged as significant users, alongside groups seeking mental health support, behavioral change, and educational enhancement. The benefits of health care chatbots were also classified into 2 themes: improvement of health care quality and efficiency and cost-effectiveness in health care delivery. The identified limitations encompassed ethical challenges, medicolegal and safety concerns, technical difficulties, user experience issues, and societal and economic impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care chatbots offer a wide spectrum of applications, potentially impacting various aspects of health care. While they are promising tools for improving health care efficiency and quality, their integration into the health care system must be approached with consideration of their limitations to ensure optimal, safe, and equitable use.

Do physical activity interventions combining self-monitoring with other components provide an additional benefit compared with self-monitoring alone? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To determine the net effect of different physical activity intervention components on step counts in addition to self-monitoring.

Design

A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Data sources

Five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest and Discus) were searched from inception to May 2022. The database search was complemented with backward and forward citation searches and search of the references from relevant systematic reviews.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention using self-monitoring (active control arm) with an intervention comprising the same treatment PLUS any additional component (intervention arm).

Data extraction and synthesis

The effect measures were mean differences in daily step count. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, and effect moderators were explored using univariate and multivariate meta-regression models.

Results

Eighty-five studies with 12 057 participants were identified, with 75 studies included in the meta-analysis at postintervention and 24 at follow-up. At postintervention, the mean difference between the intervention and active control arms was 926 steps/day (95% CI 651 to 1201). At a follow-up, the mean difference was 413 steps/day (95% CI 210 to 615). Interventions with a prescribed goal and involving human counselling, particularly via phone/video calls, were associated with a greater mean difference in the daily step count than interventions with added print materials, websites, smartphone apps or incentives.

Conclusion

Physical activity interventions that combine self-monitoring with other components provide an additional modest yet sustained increase in step count compared with self-monitoring alone. Some forms of counselling, particularly remote phone/video counselling, outperformed other intervention components, such as websites and smartphone apps.

PROSPERO registered number

CRD42020199482.

Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time.

RESULTS

121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (-0.12, -0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018102719.