Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35413887›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2022

Can chatbots help to motivate smoking cessation? A study on the effectiveness of motivational interviewing on engagement and therapeutic alliance.

Linwei He, Erkan Basar, Reinout W Wiers, Marjolijn L Antheunis, Emiel Krahmer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Linwei HeDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands. l.he_1@tilburguniversity.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6593-1661
Erkan BasarBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1948-3551
Reinout W WiersAddiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT)-Lab, Department of Psychology, and Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4312-9766
Marjolijn L AntheunisDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7611-742X
Emiel KrahmerDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6304-7549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCigarette smoking poses a major threat to public health. While cessation support provided by healthcare professionals is effective, its use remains low. Chatbots have the potential to serve as a useful addition. The objective of this study is to explore the possibility of using a motivational interviewing style chatbot to enhance engagement, therapeutic alliance, and perceived empathy in the context of smoking cessation.

methodsA preregistered web-based experiment was conducted in which smokers (n = 153) were randomly assigned to either the motivational interviewing (MI)-style chatbot condition (n = 78) or the neutral chatbot condition (n = 75) and interacted with the chatbot in two sessions. In the assessment session, typical intake questions in smoking cessation interventions were administered by the chatbot, such as smoking history, nicotine dependence level, and intention to quit. In the feedback session, the chatbot provided personalized normative feedback and discussed with participants potential reasons to quit. Engagement with the chatbot, therapeutic alliance, and perceived empathy were the primary outcomes and were assessed after both sessions. Secondary outcomes were motivation to quit and perceived communication competence and were assessed after the two sessions.

resultsNo significant effects of the experimental manipulation (MI-style or neutral chatbot) were found on engagement, therapeutic alliance, or perceived empathy. A significant increase in therapeutic alliance over two sessions emerged in both conditions, with participants reporting significantly increased motivation to quit. The chatbot was perceived as highly competent, and communication competence was positively associated with engagement, therapeutic alliance, and perceived empathy.

conclusionThe results of this preregistered study suggest that talking with a chatbot about smoking cessation can help to motivate smokers to quit and that the effect of conversation has the potential to build up over time. We did not find support for an extra motivating effect of the MI-style chatbot, for which we discuss possible reasons. These findings highlight the promise of using chatbots to motivate smoking cessation. Implications for future research are discussed.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingSmoking CessationTherapeutic AllianceDelivery of Health CareHumansMotivationSmokersChatbotEmpathyEngagementMotivational InterviewingMotivation to QuitSmoking CessationTherapeutic Alliance

Identifiers

PMID35413887
PMCPMC9003955

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.