Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39883917›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Assessing the Adherence of ChatGPT Chatbots to Public Health Guidelines for Smoking Cessation: Content Analysis.

Lorien C Abroms, Artin Yousefi, Christina N Wysota, Tien-Chin Wu, David A Broniatowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Lorien C AbromsDepartment of Prevention & Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6859-283X
Artin YousefiDepartment of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5408-9049
Christina N WysotaDepartment of Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4588-911X
Tien-Chin WuDepartment of Prevention & Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2245-8170
David A BroniatowskiDepartment of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3302-9497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language model (LLM) artificial intelligence chatbots using generative language can offer smoking cessation information and advice. However, little is known about the reliability of the information provided to users.

objectiveThis study aims to examine whether 3 ChatGPT chatbots-the World Health Organization's Sarah, BeFreeGPT, and BasicGPT-provide reliable information on how to quit smoking.

methodsA list of quit smoking queries was generated from frequent quit smoking searches on Google related to "how to quit smoking" (n=12). Each query was given to each chatbot, and responses were analyzed for their adherence to an index developed from the US Preventive Services Task Force public health guidelines for quitting smoking and counseling principles. Responses were independently coded by 2 reviewers, and differences were resolved by a third coder.

resultsAcross chatbots and queries, on average, chatbot responses were rated as being adherent to 57.1% of the items on the adherence index. Sarah's adherence (72.2%) was significantly higher than BeFreeGPT (50%) and BasicGPT (47.8%; P<.001). The majority of chatbot responses had clear language (97.3%) and included a recommendation to seek out professional counseling (80.3%). About half of the responses included the recommendation to consider using nicotine replacement therapy (52.7%), the recommendation to seek out social support from friends and family (55.6%), and information on how to deal with cravings when quitting smoking (44.4%). The least common was information about considering the use of non-nicotine replacement therapy prescription drugs (14.1%). Finally, some types of misinformation were present in 22% of responses. Specific queries that were most challenging for the chatbots included queries on "how to quit smoking cold turkey," "...with vapes," "...with gummies," "...with a necklace," and "...with hypnosis." All chatbots showed resilience to adversarial attacks that were intended to derail the conversation.

conclusionsLLM chatbots varied in their adherence to quit-smoking guidelines and counseling principles. While chatbots reliably provided some types of information, they omitted other types, as well as occasionally provided misinformation, especially for queries about less evidence-based methods of quitting. LLM chatbot instructions can be revised to compensate for these weaknesses.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePublic HealthSmoking CessationArtificial IntelligenceCounselingGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInternetartificial intelligencechatbotsChatGPTcigaretteslarge language modelssmoking cessationtobacco

Identifiers

PMID39883917
PMCPMC11826940

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.