Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36454782›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Addressing people's current and future states in a reinforcement learning algorithm for persuading to quit smoking and to be physically active.

Nele Albers, Mark A Neerincx, Willem-Paul Brinkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Replicable Bandits for Digital Health Interventions.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Deployed Online Reinforcement Learning Algorithm In An Oral Health Clinical Trial.Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

Nele AlbersDepartment of Intelligent Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0502-6176
Mark A NeerincxDepartment of Intelligent Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Willem-Paul BrinkmanDepartment of Intelligent Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8485-7092

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavior change applications often assign their users activities such as tracking the number of smoked cigarettes or planning a running route. To help a user complete these activities, an application can persuade them in many ways. For example, it may help the user create a plan or mention the experience of peers. Intuitively, the application should thereby pick the message that is most likely to be motivating. In the simplest case, this could be the message that has been most effective in the past. However, one could consider several other elements in an algorithm to choose a message. Possible elements include the user's current state (e.g., self-efficacy), the user's future state after reading a message, and the user's similarity to the users on which data has been gathered. To test the added value of subsequently incorporating these elements into an algorithm that selects persuasive messages, we conducted an experiment in which more than 500 people in four conditions interacted with a text-based virtual coach. The experiment consisted of five sessions, in each of which participants were suggested a preparatory activity for quitting smoking or increasing physical activity together with a persuasive message. Our findings suggest that adding more elements to the algorithm is effective, especially in later sessions and for people who thought the activities were useful. Moreover, while we found some support for transferring knowledge between the two activity types, there was rather low agreement between the optimal policies computed separately for the two activity types. This suggests limited policy generalizability between activities for quitting smoking and those for increasing physical activity. We see our results as supporting the idea of constructing more complex persuasion algorithms. Our dataset on 2,366 persuasive messages sent to 671 people is published together with this article for researchers to build on our algorithm.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationAlgorithmsHumansReinforcement, PsychologySmokingTobacco Smoking

Identifiers

PMID36454782
PMCPMC9714722

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.