Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38466897›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of medicine2024

A systematic review of artificial intelligence-powered (AI-powered) chatbot intervention for managing chronic illness.

Moh Heri Kurniawan, Hanny Handiyani, Tuti Nuraini, Rr Tutik Sri Hariyati, Sutrisno Sutrisno

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Moh Heri KurniawanDoctoral Student, Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-6847-6484
Hanny HandiyaniDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-1746-267X
Tuti NurainiDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-1170-0398
Rr Tutik Sri HariyatiDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-4496-4795
Sutrisno SutrisnoDepartement of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Universitas Aisyah Pringsewu, Kabupaten Pringsewu, Indonesia.ORCID 0009-0000-8700-5864

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUtilizing artificial intelligence (AI) in chatbots, especially for chronic diseases, has become increasingly prevalent. These AI-powered chatbots serve as crucial tools for enhancing patient communication, addressing the rising prevalence of chronic conditions, and meeting the growing demand for supportive healthcare applications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive reviews evaluating the impact of AI-powered chatbot interventions in healthcare within academic literature. This study aimed to assess user satisfaction, intervention efficacy, and the specific characteristics and AI architectures of chatbot systems designed for chronic diseases.

methodA thorough exploration of the existing literature was undertaken by employing diverse databases such as PubMed MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library and Scopus. The studies incorporated in this analysis encompassed primary research that employed chatbots or other forms of AI architecture in the context of preventing, treating or rehabilitating chronic diseases. The assessment of bias risk was conducted using Risk of 2.0 Tools.

resultsSeven hundred and eighty-four results were obtained, and subsequently, eight studies were found to align with the inclusion criteria. The intervention methods encompassed health education (

conclusionsThe reviewed studies suggest promising acceptance of AI-powered chatbots for self-managing chronic conditions. However, limited evidence on their efficacy due to insufficient technical documentation calls for future studies to provide detailed descriptions and prioritize patient safety. These chatbots employ natural language processing and multimodal interaction. Subsequent research should focus on evidence-based evaluations, facilitating comparisons across diverse chronic health conditions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceChronic DiseaseHumansPatient SatisfactionArtificial intelligencechatbotchronic illnessconversational agents

Identifiers

PMID38466897
PMCPMC10930147

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.