Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39250799›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mental health2024

Empathic Conversational Agent Platform Designs and Their Evaluation in the Context of Mental Health: Systematic Review.

Ruvini Sanjeewa, Ravi Iyer, Pragalathan Apputhurai, Nilmini Wickramasinghe, Denny Meyer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Ruvini SanjeewaSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0009-0008-8301-6994
Ravi IyerSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7699-0846
Pragalathan ApputhuraiSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1667-6315
Nilmini WickramasingheSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1314-8843
Denny MeyerSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9902-0858

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe demand for mental health (MH) services in the community continues to exceed supply. At the same time, technological developments make the use of artificial intelligence-empowered conversational agents (CAs) a real possibility to help fill this gap.

objectiveThe objective of this review was to identify existing empathic CA design architectures within the MH care sector and to assess their technical performance in detecting and responding to user emotions in terms of classification accuracy. In addition, the approaches used to evaluate empathic CAs within the MH care sector in terms of their acceptability to users were considered. Finally, this review aimed to identify limitations and future directions for empathic CAs in MH care.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across 6 academic databases to identify journal articles and conference proceedings using search terms covering 3 topics: "conversational agents," "mental health," and "empathy." Only studies discussing CA interventions for the MH care domain were eligible for this review, with both textual and vocal characteristics considered as possible data inputs. Quality was assessed using appropriate risk of bias and quality tools.

resultsA total of 19 articles met all inclusion criteria. Most (12/19, 63%) of these empathic CA designs in MH care were machine learning (ML) based, with 26% (5/19) hybrid engines and 11% (2/19) rule-based systems. Among the ML-based CAs, 47% (9/19) used neural networks, with transformer-based architectures being well represented (7/19, 37%). The remaining 16% (3/19) of the ML models were unspecified. Technical assessments of these CAs focused on response accuracies and their ability to recognize, predict, and classify user emotions. While single-engine CAs demonstrated good accuracy, the hybrid engines achieved higher accuracy and provided more nuanced responses. Of the 19 studies, human evaluations were conducted in 16 (84%), with only 5 (26%) focusing directly on the CA's empathic features. All these papers used self-reports for measuring empathy, including single or multiple (scale) ratings or qualitative feedback from in-depth interviews. Only 1 (5%) paper included evaluations by both CA users and experts, adding more value to the process.

conclusionsThe integration of CA design and its evaluation is crucial to produce empathic CAs. Future studies should focus on using a clear definition of empathy and standardized scales for empathy measurement, ideally including expert assessment. In addition, the diversity in measures used for technical assessment and evaluation poses a challenge for comparing CA performances, which future research should also address. However, CAs with good technical and empathic performance are already available to users of MH care services, showing promise for new applications, such as helpline services.

Indexed as

EmpathyMental Health ServicesArtificial IntelligenceHumanschatbotsconversational agentsemotionally awareempathymental healthmental well-beingvirtual assistants

Identifiers

PMID39250799
PMCPMC11420590

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.