Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40957014›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

New Doc on the Block: Scoping Review of AI Systems Delivering Motivational Interviewing for Health Behavior Change.

Zev Karve, Jacob Calpey, Christopher Machado, Michelle Knecht, Maria Carmenza Mejia

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zev KarveSchmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1005-7157
Jacob CalpeySchmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5079-989X
Christopher MachadoSchmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7964-7734
Michelle KnechtSchmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1582-4339
Maria Carmenza MejiaSchmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0703-8688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in digital health, particularly through large language models (LLMs), to support patient engagement and behavior change. One novel application is the delivery of motivational interviewing (MI), an evidence-based, patient-centered counseling technique designed to enhance motivation and resolve ambivalence around health behaviors. AI tools, including chatbots, mobile apps, and web-based agents, are being developed to simulate MI techniques at scale. While these innovations are promising, important questions remain about how faithfully AI systems can replicate MI principles or achieve meaningful behavioral impact.

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to summarize existing empirical studies evaluating AI-driven systems that apply MI techniques to support health behavior change. Specifically, we examined the feasibility of these systems; their fidelity to MI principles; and their reported behavioral, psychological, or engagement outcomes.

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for empirical studies published between January 1, 2018, and February 25, 2025. Eligible studies involved AI-driven systems using natural language generation, understanding, or computational logic to deliver MI techniques to users targeting a specific health behavior. We excluded studies using AI solely for training clinicians in MI. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted data on study design, AI modality and type, MI components, health behavior focus, MI fidelity assessment, and outcome domains.

resultsOf the 1001 records identified, 15 (1.5%) met the inclusion criteria. Of these 15 studies, 6 (40%) were exploratory feasibility or pilot studies, and 3 (20%) were randomized controlled trials. AI modalities included rule-based chatbots (9/15, 60%), LLM-based systems (4/15, 27%), and virtual or mobile agents (2/15, 13%). Targeted behaviors included smoking cessation (6/15, 40%), substance use (3/15, 20%), COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, type 2 diabetes self-management, stress, mental health service use, and opioid use during pregnancy. Of the 15 studies, 13 (87%) reported positive findings on feasibility or user acceptability, while 6 (40%) assessed MI fidelity using expert review or structured coding, with moderate to high alignment reported. Several studies found that users perceived the AI systems as judgment free, supportive, and easier to engage with than human counselors, particularly in stigmatized contexts. However, limitations in empathy, safety transparency, and emotional nuance were commonly noted. Only 3 (20%) of the 15 studies reported substantially significant behavioral changes.

conclusionsAI systems delivering MI show promise for enhancing patient engagement and scaling behavior change interventions. Early evidence supports their usability and partial fidelity to MI principles, especially in sensitive domains. However, most systems remain in early development, and few have been rigorously tested. Future research should prioritize randomized evaluations; standardized fidelity measures; and safeguards for LLM safety, empathy, and accuracy in health-related dialogue.

trial registrationOSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/G9N7E; https://osf.io/g9n7e.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth BehaviorMotivational InterviewingCOVID-19HumansAIartificial intelligencebehavior changedigital healthlarge language modelsmotivational interviewing

Identifiers

PMID40957014
PMCPMC12485255

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.