Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38483464›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Adapting the Number of Questions Based on Detected Psychological Distress for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With an Embodied Conversational Agent: Comparative Study.

Kazuhiro Shidara, Hiroki Tanaka, Hiroyoshi Adachi, Daisuke Kanayama, Takashi Kudo, Satoshi Nakamura

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kazuhiro ShidaraNara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2368-8613
Hiroki TanakaNara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0548-6252
Hiroyoshi AdachiHealth and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9259-3197
Daisuke KanayamaHealth and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9901-1337
Takashi KudoHealth and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2788-0653
Satoshi NakamuraNara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6956-3803
Nara Institute of Science and Technology · JPThe University of Osaka · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe high prevalence of mental illness is a critical social problem. The limited availability of mental health services is a major factor that exacerbates this problem. One solution is to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) using an embodied conversational agent (ECA). ECAs make it possible to provide health care without location or time constraints. One of the techniques used in CBT is Socratic questioning, which guides users to correct negative thoughts. The effectiveness of this approach depends on a therapist's skill to adapt to the user's mood or distress level. However, current ECAs do not possess this skill. Therefore, it is essential to implement this adaptation ability to the ECAs.

objectiveThis study aims to develop and evaluate a method that automatically adapts the number of Socratic questions based on the level of detected psychological distress during a CBT session with an ECA. We hypothesize that this adaptive approach to selecting the number of questions will lower psychological distress, reduce negative emotional states, and produce more substantial cognitive changes compared with a random number of questions.

methodsIn this study, which envisions health care support in daily life, we recruited participants aged from 18 to 65 years for an experiment that involved 2 different conditions: an ECA that adapts a number of questions based on psychological distress detection or an ECA that only asked a random number of questions. The participants were assigned to 1 of the 2 conditions, experienced a single CBT session with an ECA, and completed questionnaires before and after the session.

resultsThe participants completed the experiment. There were slight differences in sex, age, and preexperimental psychological distress levels between the 2 conditions. The adapted number of questions condition showed significantly lower psychological distress than the random number of questions condition after the session. We also found a significant difference in the cognitive change when the number of questions was adapted based on the detected distress level, compared with when the number of questions was fewer than what was appropriate for the level of distress detected.

conclusionsThe results show that an ECA adapting the number of Socratic questions based on detected distress levels increases the effectiveness of CBT. Participants who received an adaptive number of questions experienced greater reductions in distress than those who received a random number of questions. In addition, the participants showed a greater amount of cognitive change when the number of questions matched the detected distress level. This suggests that adapting the question quantity based on distress level detection can improve the results of CBT delivered by an ECA. These results illustrate the advantages of ECAs, paving the way for mental health care that is more tailored and effective.

Indexed as

automatic thoughtscognitive behavioral therapyembodied conversational agentslong short-term memorymultitask learningpsychological distress detection

Identifiers

PMID38483464
PMCPMC10979340
OpenAlexW4391623834

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.