10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving User Experience of Virtual Health Assistants: Scoping Review

      review-article
      , BPsych (Hons), PhD 1 , , , BA 1 , , BPhysio (Hons) 1 , , BHmMvt, BHlthSc (Hons) 1 , , BBus, MRsch 1 , , BPhysio (Hons) 1 , , BPhysio (Hons), PhD 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      virtual assistant, conversational agent, chatbot, eHealth, digital health, design, user experience, mobile phone

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Virtual assistants can be used to deliver innovative health programs that provide appealing, personalized, and convenient health advice and support at scale and low cost. Design characteristics that influence the look and feel of the virtual assistant, such as visual appearance or language features, may significantly influence users’ experience and engagement with the assistant.

          Objective

          This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the experimental research examining how design characteristics of virtual health assistants affect user experience, summarize research findings of experimental research examining how design characteristics of virtual health assistants affect user experience, and provide recommendations for the design of virtual health assistants if sufficient evidence exists.

          Methods

          We searched 5 electronic databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and ACM Digital Library) to identify the studies that used an experimental design to compare the effects of design characteristics between 2 or more versions of an interactive virtual health assistant on user experience among adults. Data were synthesized descriptively. Health domains, design characteristics, and outcomes were categorized, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the body of research. Results for each study were categorized as positive, negative, or no effect, and a matrix of the design characteristics and outcome categories was constructed to summarize the findings.

          Results

          The database searches identified 6879 articles after the removal of duplicates. We included 48 articles representing 45 unique studies in the review. The most common health domains were mental health and physical activity. Studies most commonly examined design characteristics in the categories of visual design or conversational style and relational behavior and assessed outcomes in the categories of personality, satisfaction, relationship, or use intention. Over half of the design characteristics were examined by only 1 study. Results suggest that empathy and relational behavior and self-disclosure are related to more positive user experience. Results also suggest that if a human-like avatar is used, realistic rendering and medical attire may potentially be related to more positive user experience; however, more research is needed to confirm this.

          Conclusions

          There is a growing body of scientific evidence examining the impact of virtual health assistants’ design characteristics on user experience. Taken together, data suggest that the look and feel of a virtual health assistant does affect user experience. Virtual health assistants that show empathy, display nonverbal relational behaviors, and disclose personal information about themselves achieve better user experience. At present, the evidence base is broad, and the studies are typically small in scale and highly heterogeneous. Further research, particularly using longitudinal research designs with repeated user interactions, is needed to inform the optimal design of virtual health assistants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                December 2021
                21 December 2021
                : 23
                : 12
                : e31737
                Affiliations
                [1 ] UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity University of South Australia Adelaide Australia
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Rachel G Curtis Rachel.Curtis@ 123456unisa.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1341-7804
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5401-0923
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0106-7621
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9903-9287
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9765-4734
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7717-7715
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-0224
                Article
                v23i12e31737
                10.2196/31737
                8734926
                34931997
                c0043d25-88dd-45eb-8955-1d2c0d7f31e9
                ©Rachel G Curtis, Bethany Bartel, Ty Ferguson, Henry T Blake, Celine Northcott, Rosa Virgara, Carol A Maher. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 21.12.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 2 July 2021
                : 25 August 2021
                : 19 September 2021
                : 21 October 2021
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                virtual assistant,conversational agent,chatbot,ehealth,digital health,design,user experience,mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article