Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30950796›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Physicians' Perceptions of Chatbots in Health Care: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey.

Adam Palanica, Peter Flaschner, Anirudh Thommandram, Michael Li, Yan Fossat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 128 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
25.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

128 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 399 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Adam PalanicaLabs Department, Klick Health, Klick Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0035-7128
Peter FlaschnerMarketing Department, Klick Health, Klick Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8150-5419
Anirudh ThommandramLabs Department, Klick Health, Klick Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2546-4587
Michael LiLabs Department, Klick Health, Klick Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6244-8500
Yan FossatLabs Department, Klick Health, Klick Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1271-2633

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany potential benefits for the uses of chatbots within the context of health care have been theorized, such as improved patient education and treatment compliance. However, little is known about the perspectives of practicing medical physicians on the use of chatbots in health care, even though these individuals are the traditional benchmark of proper patient care.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the perceptions of physicians regarding the use of health care chatbots, including their benefits, challenges, and risks to patients.

methodsA total of 100 practicing physicians across the United States completed a Web-based, self-report survey to examine their opinions of chatbot technology in health care. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were used to examine the characteristics of participants.

resultsA wide variety of positive and negative perspectives were reported on the use of health care chatbots, including the importance to patients for managing their own health and the benefits on physical, psychological, and behavioral health outcomes. More consistent agreement occurred with regard to administrative benefits associated with chatbots; many physicians believed that chatbots would be most beneficial for scheduling doctor appointments (78%, 78/100), locating health clinics (76%, 76/100), or providing medication information (71%, 71/100). Conversely, many physicians believed that chatbots cannot effectively care for all of the patients' needs (76%, 76/100), cannot display human emotion (72%, 72/100), and cannot provide detailed diagnosis and treatment because of not knowing all of the personal factors associated with the patient (71%, 71/100). Many physicians also stated that health care chatbots could be a risk to patients if they self-diagnose too often (714%, 74/100) and do not accurately understand the diagnoses (74%, 74/100).

conclusionsPhysicians believed in both costs and benefits associated with chatbots, depending on the logistics and specific roles of the technology. Chatbots may have a beneficial role to play in health care to support, motivate, and coach patients as well as for streamlining organizational tasks; in essence, chatbots could become a surrogate for nonmedical caregivers. However, concerns remain on the inability of chatbots to comprehend the emotional state of humans as well as in areas where expert medical knowledge and intelligence is required.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineUnited Stateshealth carehealth surveysmobile healthphysician satisfactiontelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30950796
PMCPMC6473203
OpenAlexW2913713488

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.