Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30885190›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Considering patient safety in autonomous e-mental health systems - detecting risk situations and referring patients back to human care.

Myrthe L Tielman, Mark A Neerincx, Claudia Pagliari, Albert Rizzo, Willem-Paul Brinkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Connected Mental Health: Systematic Mapping Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Myrthe L TielmanDepartment of Interactive Intelligence, Delft University of Technology, van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, 2628 XE, Delft, The Netherlands. m.l.tielman@tudelft.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-7826-5821
Mark A NeerincxDepartment of Interactive Intelligence, Delft University of Technology, van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, 2628 XE, Delft, The Netherlands.
Claudia PagliariEdinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK.
Albert RizzoUSC Institute of Creative Technologies, Playa Vista, California, USA.
Willem-Paul BrinkmanDepartment of Interactive Intelligence, Delft University of Technology, van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, 2628 XE, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions can fill gaps in mental healthcare provision. However, autonomous e-mental health (AEMH) systems also present challenges for effective risk management. To balance autonomy and safety, AEMH systems need to detect risk situations and act on these appropriately. One option is sending automatic alerts to carers, but such 'auto-referral' could lead to missed cases or false alerts. Requiring users to actively self-refer offers an alternative, but this can also be risky as it relies on their motivation to do so. This study set out with two objectives. Firstly, to develop guidelines for risk detection and auto-referral systems. Secondly, to understand how persuasive techniques, mediated by a virtual agent, can facilitate self-referral.

methodsIn a formative phase, interviews with experts, alongside a literature review, were used to develop a risk detection protocol. Two referral protocols were developed - one involving auto-referral, the other motivating users to self-refer. This latter was tested via crowd-sourcing (n = 160). Participants were asked to imagine they had sleeping problems with differing severity and user stance on seeking help. They then chatted with a virtual agent, who either directly facilitated referral, tried to persuade the user, or accepted that they did not want help. After the conversation, participants rated their intention to self-refer, to chat with the agent again, and their feeling of being heard by the agent.

resultsWhether the virtual agent facilitated, persuaded or accepted, influenced all of these measures. Users who were initially negative or doubtful about self-referral could be persuaded. For users who were initially positive about seeking human care, this persuasion did not affect their intentions, indicating that a simply facilitating referral without persuasion was sufficient.

conclusionThis paper presents a protocol that elucidates the steps and decisions involved in risk detection, something that is relevant for all types of AEMH systems. In the case of self-referral, our study shows that a virtual agent can increase users' intention to self-refer. Moreover, the strategy of the agent influenced the intentions of the user afterwards. This highlights the importance of a personalised approach to promote the user's access to appropriate care.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPatient SafetyPersuasive CommunicationReferral and ConsultationRoboticsTelemedicineAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentAssistive technologiesChatbotsConversational agentseHealthPersuasive computingRiskRoboticsVirtual agents

Identifiers

PMID30885190
PMCPMC6421702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.