ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Health Professionals' Views on the Use of Conversational Agents for Health Care: Qualitative Descriptive Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effectiveness and Feasibility of Conversational Agents in Supporting Care for Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Conversational Agents for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Exploring Nurses' Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Mental Health Support: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Exploring health professionals' views on the depiction of conversational agents as health professionals: a qualitative descriptive study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increase in the use of conversational agents for health promotion and service delivery. To date, health professionals' views on the use of this technology have received limited attention in the literature.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how health professionals view the use of conversational agents for health care.
methodsPhysicians, nurses, and regulated mental health professionals were recruited using various web-based methods. Participants were interviewed individually using the Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc) videoconferencing platform. Interview questions focused on the potential benefits and risks of using conversational agents for health care, as well as the best way to integrate conversational agents into the health care system. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and uploaded to NVivo (version 12; QSR International, Inc) for thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 24 health professionals participated in the study (19 women, 5 men; mean age 42.75, SD 10.71 years). Participants said that the use of conversational agents for health care could have certain benefits, such as greater access to care for patients or clients and workload support for health professionals. They also discussed potential drawbacks, such as an added burden on health professionals (eg, program familiarization) and the limited capabilities of these programs. Participants said that conversational agents could be used for routine or basic tasks, such as screening and assessment, providing information and education, and supporting individuals between appointments. They also said that health professionals should have some oversight in terms of the development and implementation of these programs.
conclusionsThe results of this study provide insight into health professionals' views on the use of conversational agents for health care, particularly in terms of the benefits and drawbacks of these programs and how they should be integrated into the health care system. These collective findings offer useful information and guidance to stakeholders who have an interest in the development and implementation of this technology.
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.