会话代理在生理和心理症状管理:随机对照试验的系统回顾。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 NURSING International Journal of Nursing Studies Pub Date : 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104991
Qingling Yang , Kin Cheung , Yan Zhang , Yazhou Zhang , Jing Qin , Yao Jie Xie
{"title":"会话代理在生理和心理症状管理:随机对照试验的系统回顾。","authors":"Qingling Yang ,&nbsp;Kin Cheung ,&nbsp;Yan Zhang ,&nbsp;Yazhou Zhang ,&nbsp;Jing Qin ,&nbsp;Yao Jie Xie","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Effective management of physical and psychological symptoms is a critical component of comprehensive care for both chronic disease patients and apparently healthy individuals experiencing episodic symptoms. Conversational agents, which are dialog systems capable of understanding and generating human language, have emerged as a potential tool to enhance symptom management through interactive support.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To examine the characteristics and effectiveness of conversational agent-delivered interventions reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the management of both physical and psychological symptoms.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive search was performed in Pubmed, ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PyscInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and gray literature sources from their inception to Oct 2024. Search terms included “conversational agent”, “symptom”, “randomized controlled trial” and their synonyms and hyponyms. Duplicates were identified by EndNote, and titles, abstracts and full texts were independently screened according to predefined criteria. Data extraction focused on basic study characteristics and conversational agent details, with The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool employed for bias assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The search yielded 2756 articles and 29 were finally included for review. The included studies predominantly came from developed countries (n = 23) and were conducted between 2020 and 2024 (n = 24). The studies frequently evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of conversational agent interventions (n = 14), with a predominantly focus on psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) (n = 17). A few studies focused on physical symptoms (pain, etc.) (n = 4), while others addressed both symptoms (n = 8). Twenty-five distinct conversational agents (Woebot, Tess, etc.) were evaluated, utilizing platforms ranging from proprietary applications to common messaging channels like WeChat and Facebook Messenger. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was a commonly integrated approach (n = 22), with rule-based dialogs (n = 22) as the most commonly dialog system methods and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (n = 15) as the predominant AI techniques. The median recruitment and completion rates were 72 % and 79 %, respectively. The majority of studies reported positive user experiences and significant symptom management improvements (n = 22). However, risk of bias was high in seventeen studies and presented some concerns in nine others.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Conversational agents have shown promise in enhancing both physical and psychological symptom management through positive user experiences and effectiveness. However, the high risk of bias identified in many studies warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Future research should prioritize the methodological quality of RCTs to strengthen the evidence base supporting the use of conversational agents as a complementary tool in symptom management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 104991"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conversational agents in physical and psychological symptom management: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Qingling Yang ,&nbsp;Kin Cheung ,&nbsp;Yan Zhang ,&nbsp;Yazhou Zhang ,&nbsp;Jing Qin ,&nbsp;Yao Jie Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Effective management of physical and psychological symptoms is a critical component of comprehensive care for both chronic disease patients and apparently healthy individuals experiencing episodic symptoms. Conversational agents, which are dialog systems capable of understanding and generating human language, have emerged as a potential tool to enhance symptom management through interactive support.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To examine the characteristics and effectiveness of conversational agent-delivered interventions reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the management of both physical and psychological symptoms.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive search was performed in Pubmed, ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PyscInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and gray literature sources from their inception to Oct 2024. Search terms included “conversational agent”, “symptom”, “randomized controlled trial” and their synonyms and hyponyms. Duplicates were identified by EndNote, and titles, abstracts and full texts were independently screened according to predefined criteria. Data extraction focused on basic study characteristics and conversational agent details, with The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool employed for bias assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The search yielded 2756 articles and 29 were finally included for review. The included studies predominantly came from developed countries (n = 23) and were conducted between 2020 and 2024 (n = 24). The studies frequently evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of conversational agent interventions (n = 14), with a predominantly focus on psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) (n = 17). A few studies focused on physical symptoms (pain, etc.) (n = 4), while others addressed both symptoms (n = 8). Twenty-five distinct conversational agents (Woebot, Tess, etc.) were evaluated, utilizing platforms ranging from proprietary applications to common messaging channels like WeChat and Facebook Messenger. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was a commonly integrated approach (n = 22), with rule-based dialogs (n = 22) as the most commonly dialog system methods and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (n = 15) as the predominant AI techniques. The median recruitment and completion rates were 72 % and 79 %, respectively. The majority of studies reported positive user experiences and significant symptom management improvements (n = 22). However, risk of bias was high in seventeen studies and presented some concerns in nine others.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Conversational agents have shown promise in enhancing both physical and psychological symptom management through positive user experiences and effectiveness. However, the high risk of bias identified in many studies warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Future research should prioritize the methodological quality of RCTs to strengthen the evidence base supporting the use of conversational agents as a complementary tool in symptom management.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies\",\"volume\":\"163 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104991\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748924003043\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748924003043","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有效的生理和心理症状管理是慢性疾病患者和经历发作性症状的表面健康个体的综合护理的关键组成部分。会话代理是一种能够理解和生成人类语言的对话系统,已成为通过交互式支持加强症状管理的潜在工具。目的:研究随机对照试验(RCTs)中报告的会话代理提供的干预措施在治疗生理和心理症状方面的特点和有效性。设计:系统回顾。方法:综合检索Pubmed、ACM数字图书馆、CINAHL、EMBASE、PyscInfo、Web of Science、Scopus和灰色文献资源,检索时间自其成立至2024年10月。搜索词包括“会话代理”、“症状”、“随机对照试验”以及它们的同义词和下义词。通过EndNote识别重复,并根据预定义的标准独立筛选标题、摘要和全文。数据提取侧重于基本研究特征和会话代理细节,使用Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0工具进行偏倚评估。结果:检索到2756篇文章,最终纳入综述29篇。纳入的研究主要来自发达国家(n = 23),在2020年至2024年间进行(n = 24)。这些研究经常评估会话代理干预的可行性和可接受性(n = 14),主要关注心理症状(抑郁、焦虑等)(n = 17)。少数研究关注身体症状(疼痛等)(n = 4),而其他研究关注两种症状(n = 8)。25种不同的会话代理(Woebot、Tess等)被评估,利用的平台从专有应用程序到微信和Facebook Messenger等常见消息传递渠道。认知行为疗法(CBT)是一种常见的综合方法(n = 22),其中基于规则的对话(n = 22)是最常见的对话系统方法,自然语言处理(NLP) (n = 15)是主要的人工智能技术。中位招募率和完成率分别为72%和79%。大多数研究报告了积极的用户体验和显著的症状管理改善(n = 22)。然而,17项研究的偏倚风险较高,另外9项研究存在一些问题。结论:会话代理通过积极的用户体验和有效性,在增强身体和心理症状管理方面显示出希望。然而,在许多研究中发现的高偏倚风险值得在解释这些发现时谨慎。未来的研究应优先考虑随机对照试验的方法学质量,以加强证据基础,支持使用会话代理作为症状管理的补充工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Conversational agents in physical and psychological symptom management: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background

Effective management of physical and psychological symptoms is a critical component of comprehensive care for both chronic disease patients and apparently healthy individuals experiencing episodic symptoms. Conversational agents, which are dialog systems capable of understanding and generating human language, have emerged as a potential tool to enhance symptom management through interactive support.

Objective

To examine the characteristics and effectiveness of conversational agent-delivered interventions reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the management of both physical and psychological symptoms.

Design

A systematic review.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed in Pubmed, ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PyscInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and gray literature sources from their inception to Oct 2024. Search terms included “conversational agent”, “symptom”, “randomized controlled trial” and their synonyms and hyponyms. Duplicates were identified by EndNote, and titles, abstracts and full texts were independently screened according to predefined criteria. Data extraction focused on basic study characteristics and conversational agent details, with The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool employed for bias assessment.

Results

The search yielded 2756 articles and 29 were finally included for review. The included studies predominantly came from developed countries (n = 23) and were conducted between 2020 and 2024 (n = 24). The studies frequently evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of conversational agent interventions (n = 14), with a predominantly focus on psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) (n = 17). A few studies focused on physical symptoms (pain, etc.) (n = 4), while others addressed both symptoms (n = 8). Twenty-five distinct conversational agents (Woebot, Tess, etc.) were evaluated, utilizing platforms ranging from proprietary applications to common messaging channels like WeChat and Facebook Messenger. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was a commonly integrated approach (n = 22), with rule-based dialogs (n = 22) as the most commonly dialog system methods and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (n = 15) as the predominant AI techniques. The median recruitment and completion rates were 72 % and 79 %, respectively. The majority of studies reported positive user experiences and significant symptom management improvements (n = 22). However, risk of bias was high in seventeen studies and presented some concerns in nine others.

Conclusions

Conversational agents have shown promise in enhancing both physical and psychological symptom management through positive user experiences and effectiveness. However, the high risk of bias identified in many studies warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Future research should prioritize the methodological quality of RCTs to strengthen the evidence base supporting the use of conversational agents as a complementary tool in symptom management.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
181
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).
期刊最新文献
Effect of zero-time exercise on physically inactive adults with insomnia disorder: A randomized controlled trial Editorial Board Comment on Raya-Benítez et al. (2025) ‘Effectiveness of non-instrumental early mobilization to reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients’ What makes a local accreditation programme successful and how? A rapid realist review and in-depth consultation with senior nursing leaders Effectiveness of the nurse-led multi-component BRIDGE program on maternal competence and selected post-discharge outcomes of preterm babies: A randomized controlled trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1