ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
The Usability and Experience of Artificial Intelligence-Based Conversational Agents in Health Education for Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Usability and User Experience Assessment of Health Care Conversational Agents Using Validated Subjective Instruments: Systematic Review and Comparative Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Pooled it
- The Usability and Experience of Artificial Intelligence-Based Conversational Agents in Health Education for Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- The Transformation of Empathic Care in the Digital Age: A Scoping Review on Digital Empathy from a Nursing Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI chatbots for health information seeking among Chinese patients with precancerous ENT lesions: a descriptive qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Chatbot-Based Approaches to Cancer Patient Education.Nursing research and practice · 2026Review
- Advancements in artificial intelligence for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction: current applications and emerging opportunities.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Preparedness for generative AI adoption among Chinese cancer survivors: a multi-center cross-sectional survey study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Implementation Challenges of Remote Cancer Symptom Management With Electronic Patient‑Reported Outcomes in China's Primary Health Care Settings: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence-based conversational agents (CAs) have shown transformative potential in healthcare, yet their application in cancer health education has remained underexplored, particularly regarding usability and patients' experiences. Existing reviews lack a dedicated focus on user perspectives, limiting insights into how CAs can be optimised for patient needs.
aimTo explore the usability and experience of artificial intelligence-based conversational agents in health education for cancer from the user perspective.
designA scoping review was conducted with the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Reviews conduct guidance and reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist.
methodsA search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore Digital Library and ACM Digital Library from their inception to March 6, 2024. The references to the articles included were also searched. The Pillar Integration Process was employed to chart data.
resultsA total of 12 studies were included in this scoping review, which revealed that CAs supported diverse educational contexts, including cancer-related knowledge (41.7%), pretest genetics (33.3%), self-management (16.7%) and psychological skills (8.3%). Three studies reported that patients preferred interactions with multiple options or 'read more' functions. Patients were generally optimistic about the CAs and reported that CAs provided informational, physical, and psychological support for them. However, limitations such as insufficient customisation, lack of empathy, and defects in understanding free-input questions were noted.
conclusionThis review demonstrated that CAs are promising complementary tools in cancer education, alleviating healthcare burdens while enhancing patient engagement, which was particularly critical in resource-limited settings. However, clinical implementation requires more rigorous validation of safety protocols and high-quality original studies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses and policymakers should consider CAs valuable tools to enhance cancer health education, provided that they align with patient needs and institutional safety standards.
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.