ArticleDigital health
Individual differences in views toward healthcare conversational agents: A cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring health professionals' views on the depiction of conversational agents as health professionals: a qualitative descriptive study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: To date, there has been limited research on people's attitudes and design preferences with respect to conversational agents (CAs) that are used for healthcare. Individual differences in attitudes and design preferences have received particularly little attention. The purpose of this study was to gain greater insight into this topic. Methods: We recruited American and Canadian residents through the online research platform Prolific. Participants completed a cross-sectional survey assessing demographic, personality, and health factors, as well as attitudes and design preferences with respect to healthcare CAs. Hierarchical regressions were used to determine demographic, personality, and health predictors of attitudes and design preferences. Results: A total of 227 participants (116 women; Conclusion: The results of this study provide insight into people's attitudes and design preferences with respect to healthcare CAs. This information will help guide developers on how to better design and market CAs for the health sector, which may increase people's adoption and use of these programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.