ArticleAIDS care2024
A necessary conversation to develop chatbots for HIV studies: qualitative findings from research staff, community advisory board members, and study participants.
Article in AIDS care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal strategies to improve uptake of and adherence to HIV prevention among young people at risk for HIV acquisition in the USA (ATN 149): a randomised, controlled, factorial trial.The Lancet. Digital health · 2024Trial
- Development, Feasibility, Acceptability, and Usability of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Chatbot (Suzy) to Support Patients in Substance Use Disorder Recovery: Multiphase Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Acceptability and Use of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Chatbots for Sexual and Reproductive Health Among Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Women of Color in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Formative evaluation of the acceptance of HIV prevention Artificial Intelligence chatbots by Black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the Southern United States: Focus group study.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- The first AI-based Chatbot to promote HIV self-management: A mixed methods usability study.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Chatbots for HIV Prevention and Care: a Narrative Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chatbots increase business productivity by handling customer conversations instead of human agents. Similar rationale applies to use chatbots in the healthcare sector, especially for health coaches who converse with clients. Chatbots are nascent in healthcare. Study findings have been mixed in terms of engagement and their impact on outcomes. Questions remain as to chatbot acceptability with coaches and other providers; studies have focused on clients.To clarify perceived benefits of chatbots in HIV interventions we conducted virtual focus groups with 13 research staff, eight community advisory board members, and seven young adults who were HIV intervention trial participants (clients). Our HIV healthcare context is important. Clients represent a promising age demographic for chatbot uptake. They are a marginalized population warranting consideration to avoid technology that limits healthcare access.Focus group participants expressed the value of chatbots for HIV research staff and clients. Staff discussed how chatbot functions, such as automated appointment scheduling and service referrals, could reduce workloads while clients discussed the after-hours convenience of these functions. Participants also emphasized that chatbots should provide relatable conversation, reliable functionality, and would not be appropriate for all clients. Our findings underscore the need to further examine appropriate chatbot functionality in HIV interventions.
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.