Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31767629›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2019

Evaluating the quality of voice assistants' responses to consumer health questions about vaccines: an exploratory comparison of Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri.

Emily Couvillon Alagha, Rachel Renee Helbing

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Voice Assistants as Consultants for Male Patients with Sexual Dysfunction: A Reliable Option?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Emily Couvillon AlaghaDahlgren Memorial Library, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA ec1094@georgetown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-1082
Rachel Renee HelbingUniversity Libraries, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6336-1119

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the quality and accuracy of the voice assistants (VAs), Amazon Alexa, Siri and Google Assistant, in answering consumer health questions about vaccine safety and use.

methodsResponses of each VA to 54 questions related to vaccination were scored using a rubric designed to assess the accuracy of each answer provided through audio output and the quality of the source supporting each answer.

resultsOut of a total of 6 possible points, Siri averaged 5.16 points, Google Assistant averaged 5.10 points and Alexa averaged 0.98 points. Google Assistant and Siri understood voice queries accurately and provided users with links to authoritative sources about vaccination. Alexa understood fewer voice queries and did not draw answers from the same sources that were used by Google Assistant and Siri.

conclusionsThose involved in patient education should be aware of the high variability of results between VAs. Developers and health technology experts should also push for greater usability and transparency about information partnerships as the health information delivery capabilities of these devices expand in the future.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationUser-Computer InterfaceVaccinesVoiceHumansInternetMobile ApplicationsVaccinesAmazon AlexaAmazon EchoGoogle Assistanthealth literacyintelligent assistantSirivaccinesvoice assistantvoice search

Identifiers

PMID31767629
PMCPMC10410977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.