ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Conversational, Longitudinal, Ecological Assessment (CLEA): Exploring a new AI-driven method for qualitative data collection in a behavioural health context.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we present conversational longitudinal ecological assessment (CLEA), a novel conversational AI-enabled method for collecting ecologically valid, temporally sensitive qualitative health data via mobile instant messaging. We report findings from an exploratory deployment of an instantiation of CLEA within a 12-week community-based weight management programme, delivered by a charity partner in an area of deprivation. Using WhatsApp, we deployed our CLEA chat-agent to conduct twice-weekly conversational data collection sessions with participants, to elicit data about their experience of the programme and associated behaviour change. This was followed by in-person semi-structured interviews (N = 9) to examine user experiences and perceptions of interacting with the chat-agent. Participants reported that WhatsApp's familiarity supported accessibility and sustained engagement, while the conversational format encouraged reflection directed towards the research focus. Responding to chat-agent prompts required cognitive effort, leading some participants to defer engagement until they had adequate time and mental space; however, this reflective demand was largely experienced as beneficial within the programme context. The AI's quasi-human interactional qualities fostered a sense of support while reducing social judgement, enabling more candid disclosure. Together, these findings suggest initial feasibility and acceptability of this CLEA implementation within a community-based programme in an area of deprivation. Further, while the responses in single messages were often brief, useful, relevant, and meaningful insights appeared to develop over the course of conversational sessions. The study highlights both the opportunities and trade-offs of conversational AI for qualitative data collection, including design implications for health researchers looking to implement or extend the method. Finally, we position CLEA in relation to other longitudinal methods of qualitative health data elicitation.
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.