11
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

      Feasibility and Acceptability of Chatbots for Nutrition and Physical Activity Health Promotion Among Adolescents: Systematic Scoping Review With Adolescent Consultation

      review-article
      , BSc, MPH 1 , , BGS, MPH 1 , 1 , , BSc (Hons I), APD, PhD 1 , , BBiomedSc, MPH 1 ,
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Human Factors
      JMIR Publications
      chatbot, artificial intelligence, text message, adolescent nutrition, physical activity, health promotion

      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

          Reducing lifestyle risk behaviors among adolescents depends on access to age-appropriate health promotion information. Chatbots—computer programs designed to simulate conversations with human users—have the potential to deliver health information to adolescents to improve their lifestyle behaviors and support behavior change, but research on the feasibility and acceptability of chatbots in the adolescent population is unknown.

          Objective

          This systematic scoping review aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of chatbots in nutrition and physical activity interventions among adolescents. A secondary aim is to consult adolescents to identify features of chatbots that are acceptable and feasible.

          Methods

          We searched 6 electronic databases from March to April 2022 (MEDLINE, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Association for Computing Machinery library, and the IT database Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). Peer-reviewed studies were included that were conducted in the adolescent population (10-19 years old) without any chronic disease, except obesity or type 2 diabetes, and assessed chatbots used nutrition or physical activity interventions or both that encouraged individuals to meet dietary or physical activity guidelines and support positive behavior change. Studies were screened by 2 independent reviewers, with any queries resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted into tables and collated in a narrative summary. Gray literature searches were also undertaken. Results of the scoping review were presented to a diverse youth advisory group (N=16, 13-18 years old) to gain insights into this topic beyond what is published in the literature.

          Results

          The search identified 5558 papers, with 5 (0.1%) studies describing 5 chatbots meeting the inclusion criteria. The 5 chatbots were supported by mobile apps using a combination of the following features: personalized feedback, conversational agents, gamification, and monitoring of behavior change. Of the 5 studies, 2 (40.0%) studies focused on nutrition, 2 (40.0%) studies focused on physical activity, and 1 (20.0%) focused on both nutrition and physical activity. Feasibility and acceptability varied across the 5 studies, with usage rates above 50% in 3 (60.0%) studies. In addition, 3 (60.0%) studies reported health-related outcomes, with only 1 (20.0%) study showing promising effects of the intervention. Adolescents presented novel concerns around the use of chatbots in nutrition and physical activity interventions, including ethical concerns and the use of false or misleading information.

          Conclusions

          Limited research is available on chatbots in adolescent nutrition and physical activity interventions, finding insufficient evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of chatbots in the adolescent population. Similarly, adolescent consultation identified issues in the design features that have not been mentioned in the published literature. Therefore, chatbot codesign with adolescents may help ensure that such technology is feasible and acceptable to an adolescent population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • 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: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              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

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2292-9495
                2023
                5 May 2023
                : 10
                : e43227
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Engagement and Co-Design Research Hub School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health University of Sydney Westmead Australia
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Rebecca Raeside rebecca.raeside@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4420-662X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6948-9754
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1699-5324
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5390-3922
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2016-6393
                Article
                v10i1e43227
                10.2196/43227
                10199392
                37145858
                79a522a4-3a89-4a77-be64-cdd60fc7a881
                ©Rui Han, Allyson Todd, Sara Wardak, Stephanie R Partridge, Rebecca Raeside. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 05.05.2023.

                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 JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 4 October 2022
                : 26 February 2023
                : 15 March 2023
                : 13 April 2023
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                chatbot,artificial intelligence,text message,adolescent nutrition,physical activity,health promotion

                Comments

                Comment on this article