SynthesisJMIR human factors2026
Usability and User Experience Assessment of Health Care Conversational Agents Using Validated Subjective Instruments: Systematic Review and Comparative Analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital applications based on health care conversational agents (HCAs) are increasingly being developed to support health care provision. The usability and user experience of these solutions are critical determinants of their acceptability and, consequently, their impact on health-related outcomes.
objectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesize current evidence on the use of valid and reliable subjective instruments for assessing the usability and user experience of HCAs and to examine whether assessment outcomes vary according to their technical characteristics.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to February 2026. Studies were included if they used subjective instruments to evaluate the usability or user experience of HCAs.
resultsA total of 127 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies examined 3 categories of HCAs-text-based, voice-based, and embodied-applied to patient care, health education and prevention, health data collection, and support for daily activities among older adults. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was the most frequently used assessment instrument. Comparative analysis of SUS scores indicated higher usability ratings for text-based HCAs relative to voice-based and embodied systems. However, SUS and other subjective instruments used in the included studies may not fully capture key dimensions of usability and user experience of HCAs. Additionally, substantial heterogeneity was observed in assessment methodologies across studies.
conclusionsComparative analysis suggested that text-based HCAs were associated with significantly higher SUS scores than voice-based and embodied HCAs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity across the included studies in health care application domains, study designs, evaluation contexts, participant populations, and HCAs' implementation and use characteristics, as well as the limitations of the SUS in evaluating the usability of modern HCAs. The variability in assessment approaches underscores the need for standardized protocols and the development of more context-specific evaluation frameworks to enhance methodological consistency and comparability across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42530974What 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.