Cargando…

Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Conversational agents (CAs; computer programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate a conversation with users through natural language) have evolved considerably in recent years to support healthcare by providing autonomous, interactive, and accessible services, making them pote...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Linwei, Balaji, Divyaa, Wiers, Reinout W, Antheunis, Marjolijn L, Krahmer, Emiel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10256885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntac281
_version_ 1785057200797908992
author He, Linwei
Balaji, Divyaa
Wiers, Reinout W
Antheunis, Marjolijn L
Krahmer, Emiel
author_facet He, Linwei
Balaji, Divyaa
Wiers, Reinout W
Antheunis, Marjolijn L
Krahmer, Emiel
author_sort He, Linwei
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Conversational agents (CAs; computer programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate a conversation with users through natural language) have evolved considerably in recent years to support healthcare by providing autonomous, interactive, and accessible services, making them potentially useful for supporting smoking cessation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an overarching evaluation of their effectiveness and acceptability to inform future development and adoption. AIMS AND METHODS: PsycInfo, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and CINAHL Complete were searched for studies examining the use of CAs for smoking cessation. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The search yielded 1245 publications with 13 studies eligible for systematic review (total N = 8236) and six studies for random-effects meta-analyses. All studies reported positive effects on cessation-related outcomes. A meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials reporting on abstinence yielded a sample-weighted odds ratio of 1.66 (95% CI = 1.33% to 2.07%, p < .001), favoring CAs over comparison groups. A narrative synthesis of all included studies showed overall high acceptability, while some barriers were identified from user feedback. Overall, included studies were diverse in design with mixed quality, and evidence of publication bias was identified. A lack of theoretical foundations was noted, as well as a clear need for relational communication in future designs. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness and acceptability of CAs for smoking cessation are promising. However, standardization of reporting and designing of the agents is warranted for a more comprehensive evaluation. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first systematic review to provide insight into the use of CAs to support smoking cessation. Our findings demonstrated initial promise in the effectiveness and user acceptability of these agents. We also identified a lack of theoretical and methodological limitations to improve future study design and intervention delivery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10256885
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102568852023-06-11 Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis He, Linwei Balaji, Divyaa Wiers, Reinout W Antheunis, Marjolijn L Krahmer, Emiel Nicotine Tob Res Reviews INTRODUCTION: Conversational agents (CAs; computer programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate a conversation with users through natural language) have evolved considerably in recent years to support healthcare by providing autonomous, interactive, and accessible services, making them potentially useful for supporting smoking cessation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an overarching evaluation of their effectiveness and acceptability to inform future development and adoption. AIMS AND METHODS: PsycInfo, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and CINAHL Complete were searched for studies examining the use of CAs for smoking cessation. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The search yielded 1245 publications with 13 studies eligible for systematic review (total N = 8236) and six studies for random-effects meta-analyses. All studies reported positive effects on cessation-related outcomes. A meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials reporting on abstinence yielded a sample-weighted odds ratio of 1.66 (95% CI = 1.33% to 2.07%, p < .001), favoring CAs over comparison groups. A narrative synthesis of all included studies showed overall high acceptability, while some barriers were identified from user feedback. Overall, included studies were diverse in design with mixed quality, and evidence of publication bias was identified. A lack of theoretical foundations was noted, as well as a clear need for relational communication in future designs. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness and acceptability of CAs for smoking cessation are promising. However, standardization of reporting and designing of the agents is warranted for a more comprehensive evaluation. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first systematic review to provide insight into the use of CAs to support smoking cessation. Our findings demonstrated initial promise in the effectiveness and user acceptability of these agents. We also identified a lack of theoretical and methodological limitations to improve future study design and intervention delivery. Oxford University Press 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10256885/ /pubmed/36507916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntac281 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews
He, Linwei
Balaji, Divyaa
Wiers, Reinout W
Antheunis, Marjolijn L
Krahmer, Emiel
Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort effectiveness and acceptability of conversational agents for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10256885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntac281
work_keys_str_mv AT helinwei effectivenessandacceptabilityofconversationalagentsforsmokingcessationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT balajidivyaa effectivenessandacceptabilityofconversationalagentsforsmokingcessationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wiersreinoutw effectivenessandacceptabilityofconversationalagentsforsmokingcessationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT antheunismarjolijnl effectivenessandacceptabilityofconversationalagentsforsmokingcessationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT krahmeremiel effectivenessandacceptabilityofconversationalagentsforsmokingcessationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis