ArticleJMIR formative research2022
The AI Will See You Now: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Conversational AI Medical Interviewing System.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- Shaping the Future of Men's Health: How AI Could Be a Transformative Tool for Better Patient Outcomes and Provider Efficiency.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Human interaction with a virtual assistant in preparation for in-hospital orthopedic consultation. A feasibility and acceptability study in older adults with osteoarthritis.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Advancing conversational diagnostic AI with multimodal reasoning.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Acceptance of Medical History-Taking Supported by Artificial Intelligence and Chatbots: A Population-Based Survey in Germany.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Safety-First Framework for AI-Enabled Anamnesis in Head and Neck Surgery: Evidence Synthesis from a Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Critical conversations: a user-centric approach to chatbots for history taking in the pediatric intensive care unit.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Evaluating a retrieval-augmented pregnancy chatbot: a comprehensibility-accuracy-readability study of the DIAN AI assistant.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Usability, Engagement, and Report Usefulness of Chatbot-Based Family Health History Data Collection: Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence to assist decision-making on pharmacotherapy: A feasibility study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- Transforming Health Care Through Chatbots for Medical History-Taking and Future Directions: Comprehensive Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Review
- Roles and Competencies of Doctors in Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Qualitative Analysis Through Physician Interviews.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Assessing usability of intelligent guidance chatbots in Chinese hospitals: Cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are often limited in their ability to collect detailed medical histories from patients, which can lead to errors or delays in diagnosis. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) show promise in augmenting current human-driven methods of collecting personal and family histories; however, such tools are largely unproven.
objectiveThe main aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a conversational AI medical interviewing system among patients.
methodsThe study was conducted among adult patients empaneled at a family medicine clinic within a large academic medical center in Northern California. Participants were asked to test an AI medical interviewing system, which uses a conversational avatar and chatbot to capture medical histories and identify patients with risk factors. After completing an interview with the AI system, participants completed a web-based survey inquiring about the performance of the system, the ease of using the system, and attitudes toward the system. Responses on a 7-point Likert scale were collected and evaluated using descriptive statistics.
resultsA total of 20 patients with a mean age of 50 years completed an interview with the AI system, including 12 females (60%) and 8 males (40%); 11 were White (55%), 8 were Asian (40%), and 1 was Black (5%), and 19 had at least a bachelor's degree (95%). Most participants agreed that using the system to collect histories could help their PCPs have a better understanding of their health (16/20, 80%) and help them stay healthy through identification of their health risks (14/20, 70%). Those who reported that the system was clear and understandable, and that they were able to learn it quickly, tended to be younger; those who reported that the tool could motivate them to share more comprehensive histories with their PCPs tended to be older.
conclusionsIn this feasibility and acceptability pilot of a conversational AI medical interviewing system, the majority of patients believed that it could help clinicians better understand their health and identify health risks; however, patients were split on the effort required to use the system, and whether AI should be used for medical interviewing. Our findings suggest areas for further research, such as understanding the user interface factors that influence ease of use and adoption, and the reasons behind patients' attitudes toward AI-assisted history-taking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.