Background: A rising number of conversational agents or chatbots are equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) architecture. They are increasingly prevalent in health care applications such as those providing education and support to patients with chronic diseases, one of the leading causes of death in the 21st century. AI-based chatbots enable more effective and frequent interactions with such patients. Objective: The goal of this systematic literature review is to review the characteristics, health care conditions, and AI architectures of AI-based conversational agents designed specifically for chronic diseases. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, PyscInfo, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. We applied a predefined search strategy using the terms “conversational agent,” “healthcare,” “artificial intelligence,” and their synonyms. We updated the search results using Google alerts, and screened reference lists for other relevant articles. We included primary research studies that involved the prevention, treatment, or rehabilitation of chronic diseases, involved a conversational agent, and included any kind of AI architecture. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction, and Cohen kappa was used to measure interrater agreement.A narrative approach was applied for data synthesis. Results: The literature search found 2052 articles, out of which 10 papers met the inclusion criteria. The small number of identified studies together with the prevalence of quasi-experimental studies (n=7) and prevailing prototype nature of the chatbots (n=7) revealed the immaturity of the field. The reported chatbots addressed a broad variety of chronic diseases (n=6), showcasing a tendency to develop specialized conversational agents for individual chronic conditions. However, there lacks comparison of these chatbots within and between chronic diseases. In addition, the reported evaluation measures were not standardized, and the addressed health goals showed a large range. Together, these study characteristics complicated comparability and open room for future research. While natural language processing represented the most used AI technique (n=7) and the majority of conversational agents allowed for multimodal interaction (n=6), the identified studies demonstrated broad heterogeneity, lack of depth of reported AI techniques and systems, and inconsistent usage of taxonomy of the underlying AI software, further aggravating comparability and generalizability of study results. Conclusions: The literature on AI-based conversational agents for chronic conditions is scarce and mostly consists of quasi-experimental studies with chatbots in prototype stage that use natural language processing and allow for multimodal user interaction. Future research could profit from evidence-based evaluation of the AI-based conversational agents and comparison thereof within and between different chronic health conditions. Besides increased comparability, the quality of chatbots developed for specific chronic conditions and their subsequent impact on the target patients could be enhanced by more structured development and standardized evaluation processes.

Background: Chronic and mental health conditions are increasingly prevalent worldwide. As devices in our everyday lives offer more and more voice-based self-service, voice-based conversational agents (VCAs) have the potential to support the prevention and management of these conditions in a scalable manner. However, evidence on VCAs dedicated to the prevention and management of chronic and mental health conditions is unclear. Objective: This study provides a better understanding of the current methods used in the evaluation of health interventions for the prevention and management of chronic and mental health conditions delivered through VCAs. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included primary research involving the prevention or management of chronic or mental health conditions through a VCA and reporting an empirical evaluation of the system either in terms of system accuracy, technology acceptance, or both. A total of 2 independent reviewers conducted the screening and data extraction, and agreement between them was measured using Cohen kappa. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the selected records. Results: Of 7170 prescreened papers, 12 met the inclusion criteria. All studies were nonexperimental. The VCAs provided behavioral support (n=5), health monitoring services (n=3), or both (n=4). The interventions were delivered via smartphones (n=5), tablets (n=2), or smart speakers (n=3). In 2 cases, no device was specified. A total of 3 VCAs targeted cancer, whereas 2 VCAs targeted diabetes and heart failure. The other VCAs targeted hearing impairment, asthma, Parkinson disease, dementia, autism, intellectual disability, and depression. The majority of the studies (n=7) assessed technology acceptance, but only few studies (n=3) used validated instruments. Half of the studies (n=6) reported either performance measures on speech recognition or on the ability of VCAs to respond to health-related queries. Only a minority of the studies (n=2) reported behavioral measures or a measure of attitudes toward intervention-targeted health behavior. Moreover, only a minority of studies (n=4) reported controlling for participants’ previous experience with technology. Finally, risk bias varied markedly. Conclusions: The heterogeneity in the methods, the limited number of studies identified, and the high risk of bias show that research on VCAs for chronic and mental health conditions is still in its infancy. Although the results of system accuracy and technology acceptance are encouraging, there is still a need to establish more conclusive evidence on the efficacy of VCAs for the prevention and management of chronic and mental health conditions, both in absolute terms and in comparison with standard health care.

Background: Advancements in technology offer new opportunities for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes. Venture capital companies have been investing in digital diabetes companies that offer digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs). However, little is known about the scientific evidence underpinning such interventions or the degree to which these interventions leverage novel technology-driven automated developments such as conversational agents (CAs) or just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) approaches. Objective: Our objectives were to identify the top-funded companies offering DBCIs for type 2 diabetes management and prevention, review the level of scientific evidence underpinning the DBCIs, identify which DBCIs are recognized as evidence-based programs by quality assurance authorities, and examine the degree to which these DBCIs include novel automated approaches such as CAs and JITAI mechanisms. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using 2 venture capital databases (Crunchbase Pro and Pitchbook) to identify the top-funded companies offering interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention and management. Scientific publications relating to the identified DBCIs were identified via PubMed, Google Scholar, and the DBCIs’ websites, and data regarding intervention effectiveness were extracted. The Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP) of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States was used to identify the recognition status. The DBCIs’ publications, websites, and mobile apps were reviewed with regard to the intervention characteristics. Results: The 16 top-funded companies offering DBCIs for type 2 diabetes received a total funding of US $2.4 billion as of June 15, 2021. Only 4 out of the 50 identified publications associated with these DBCIs were fully powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Further, 1 of those 4 RCTs showed a significant difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) outcomes between the intervention and control groups. However, all the studies reported HbA1c improvements ranging from 0.2% to 1.9% over the course of 12 months. In addition, 6 interventions were fully recognized by the DPRP to deliver evidence-based programs, and 2 interventions had a pending recognition status. Health professionals were included in the majority of DBCIs (13/16, 81%,), whereas only 10% (1/10) of accessible apps involved a CA as part of the intervention delivery. Self-reports represented most of the data sources (74/119, 62%) that could be used to tailor JITAIs. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the level of funding received by companies offering DBCIs for type 2 diabetes prevention and management does not coincide with the level of evidence on the intervention effectiveness. There is considerable variation in the level of evidence underpinning the different DBCIs and an overall need for more rigorous effectiveness trials and transparent reporting by quality assurance authorities. Currently, very few DBCIs use automated approaches such as CAs and JITAIs, limiting the scalability and reach of these solutions.

Background: Excessive school bag weight is a barrier to active transport to school (ATS). This study examined parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of school bag weights and actual school bag weights for adolescents in New Zealand. Methods: Parents (n = 331; 76.7% women) completed a survey. Adolescents (n = 682; age 15.1 ± 1.4 years; 57.3% boys) completed a survey, underwent anthropometry, and had their school bags weighed. Results: Overall, 68.3% of parents perceived that adolescents’ school bags were too heavy to carry to school. This parental perception differed by adolescents’ mode of transport to school (active/motorized/combined: 35.1%/78.4%/68.8%, p < 0.001). Adolescents perceived that their school bags were too heavy to carry to walk (57.8%) or cycle (65.8%) to school. Adolescent perceptions differed by mode of transport to school (for walking (active/motorized/combined): 30.9%/69.2%/55.9% agree, p < 0.001; for cycling: 47.9%/72.8%/67.7%; p < 0.001). Actual school bag weight was, on average, 5.6 ± 2.1 kg. Relative school bag weight (% of body weight) was higher for boys and underweight adolescents compared to their counterparts. Neither absolute nor relative school bag weight differed by mode of transport to school. Conclusions: School bag weight was perceived a barrier to ATS and was a greater perceived barrier among users of motorized versus active transport. Perceptions of school bag weights should be considered in future ATS interventions.

Introduction: Drug utilization is currently assessed through traditional data sources such as big electronic medical records (EMRs) databases, surveys, and medication sales. Social media and internet data have been reported to provide more accessible and more timely access to medications' utilization.Objective: This review aims at providing evidence comparing web data on drug utilization to other sources before the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus until November 25th, 2019, using a predefined search strategy. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction.Results: Of 6,563 (64%) deduplicated publications retrieved, 14 (0.2%) were included. All studies showed positive associations between drug utilization information from web and comparison data using very different methods. A total of nine (64%) studies found positive linear correlations in drug utilization between web and comparison data. Five studies reported association using other methods: One study reported similar drug popularity rankings using both data sources. Two studies developed prediction models for future drug consumption, including both web and comparison data, and two studies conducted ecological analyses but did not quantitatively compare data sources. According to the STROBE, RECORD, and RECORD-PE checklists, overall reporting quality was mediocre. Many items were left blank as they were out of scope for the type of study investigated.Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the potential of web data for assessing drug utilization, although the field is still in a nascent period of investigation. Ultimately, social media and internet search data could be used to get a quick preliminary quantification of drug use in real time. Additional studies on the topic should use more standardized methodologies on different sets of drugs in order to confirm these findings. In addition, currently available checklists for study quality of reporting would need to be adapted to these new sources of scientific information.

BACKGROUND A rising number of conversational agents or chatbots are equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) architecture. They are increasingly prevalent in health care applications such as those providing education and support to patients with chronic diseases, one of the leading causes of death in the 21st century. AI-based chatbots enable more effective and frequent interactions with such patients. OBJECTIVE The goal of this systematic literature review is to review the characteristics, health care conditions, and AI architectures of AI-based conversational agents designed specifically for chronic diseases. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, PyscInfo, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. We applied a predefined search strategy using the terms “conversational agent,” “healthcare,” “artificial intelligence,” and their synonyms. We updated the search results using Google alerts, and screened reference lists for other relevant articles. We included primary research studies that involved the prevention, treatment, or rehabilitation of chronic diseases, involved a conversational agent, and included any kind of AI architecture. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction, and Cohen kappa was used to measure interrater agreement.A narrative approach was applied for data synthesis. RESULTS The literature search found 2052 articles, out of which 10 papers met the inclusion criteria. The small number of identified studies together with the prevalence of quasi-experimental studies (n=7) and prevailing prototype nature of the chatbots (n=7) revealed the immaturity of the field. The reported chatbots addressed a broad variety of chronic diseases (n=6), showcasing a tendency to develop specialized conversational agents for individual chronic conditions. However, there lacks comparison of these chatbots within and between chronic diseases. In addition, the reported evaluation measures were not standardized, and the addressed health goals showed a large range. Together, these study characteristics complicated comparability and open room for future research. While natural language processing represented the most used AI technique (n=7) and the majority of conversational agents allowed for multimodal interaction (n=6), the identified studies demonstrated broad heterogeneity, lack of depth of reported AI techniques and systems, and inconsistent usage of taxonomy of the underlying AI software, further aggravating comparability and generalizability of study results. CONCLUSIONS The literature on AI-based conversational agents for chronic conditions is scarce and mostly consists of quasi-experimental studies with chatbots in prototype stage that use natural language processing and allow for multimodal user interaction. Future research could profit from evidence-based evaluation of the AI-based conversational agents and comparison thereof within and between different chronic health conditions. Besides increased comparability, the quality of chatbots developed for specific chronic conditions and their subsequent impact on the target patients could be enhanced by more structured development and standardized evaluation processes.