评估ChatGPT聊天机器人对戒烟公共卫生指南的依从性:内容分析

IF 8.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Internet Research Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.2196/66896
Lorien C Abroms, Artin Yousefi, Christina N Wysota, Tien-Chin Wu, David A Broniatowski
{"title":"评估ChatGPT聊天机器人对戒烟公共卫生指南的依从性:内容分析","authors":"Lorien C Abroms, Artin Yousefi, Christina N Wysota, Tien-Chin Wu, David A Broniatowski","doi":"10.2196/66896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large 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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLM 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e66896"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11826940/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Adherence of ChatGPT Chatbots to Public Health Guidelines for Smoking Cessation: Content Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lorien C Abroms, Artin Yousefi, Christina N Wysota, Tien-Chin Wu, David A Broniatowski\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/66896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large 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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLM 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"volume\":\"27 \",\"pages\":\"e66896\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11826940/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/66896\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/66896","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用生成语言的大语言模型(LLM)人工智能聊天机器人可以提供戒烟信息和建议。然而,人们对提供给用户的信息的可靠性知之甚少。目的:本研究旨在检验3个ChatGPT聊天机器人——世界卫生组织的Sarah、BeFreeGPT和basicgpt——是否提供了如何戒烟的可靠信息。方法:根据谷歌上频繁的戒烟搜索“如何戒烟”生成戒烟查询列表(n=12)。每个问题都给了每个聊天机器人,并分析了他们对美国预防服务工作组戒烟和咨询原则公共卫生指南制定的指数的依从性。回复由2个评论者独立编码,差异由第三个编码员解决。结果:在聊天机器人和查询中,平均而言,聊天机器人的回答被评为遵守遵守指数上57.1%的项目。Sarah的依从性(72.2%)显著高于BeFreeGPT(50%)和BasicGPT (47.8%);结论:法学硕士聊天机器人在遵守戒烟指南和咨询原则方面存在差异。虽然聊天机器人可靠地提供了某些类型的信息,但它们忽略了其他类型的信息,偶尔也会提供错误信息,尤其是在询问有关缺乏证据的戒烟方法时。可以修改LLM聊天机器人指令来弥补这些弱点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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

Background: Large 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.

Objective: This 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.

Methods: A 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.

Results: Across 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.

Conclusions: LLM 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.

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
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
期刊最新文献
Personal Health Large Language Models and the Negotiation of Medical Authority in Clinical Care: Opportunities, Risks, and Governance. Digital Literacy and Patient Satisfaction in Telemedicine Follow-Up With In-Person App Instruction Versus Outpatient Department Follow-Up After Upper-Extremity Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Identity Theft in Academia: Predatory Journals, AI, and the Rise of False Authorship. An Internet-Based Mindfulness- and Compassion-Based Intercare Program for Reducing Parental Burnout: Randomized Controlled Trial. Digital Media for Health Outcomes: Evaluation Study of a Massive Online Open Course.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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