Evidence of Human-Level Bonds Established With a Digital Conversational Agent: Cross-sectional, Retrospective Observational Study.
anxiety
chatbots
conversational agents
depression
digital health
mobile mental health
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 May 2021
11 May 2021
Historique:
received:
10
02
2021
accepted:
04
04
2021
revised:
23
03
2021
entrez:
11
5
2021
pubmed:
12
5
2021
medline:
12
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are far more patients in mental distress than there is time available for mental health professionals to support them. Although digital tools may help mitigate this issue, critics have suggested that technological solutions that lack human empathy will prevent a bond or therapeutic alliance from being formed, thereby narrowing these solutions' efficacy. We aimed to investigate whether users of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based conversational agent would report therapeutic bond levels that are similar to those in literature about other CBT modalities, including face-to-face therapy, group CBT, and other digital interventions that do not use a conversational agent. A cross-sectional, retrospective study design was used to analyze aggregate, deidentified data from adult users who self-referred to a CBT-based, fully automated conversational agent (Woebot) between November 2019 and August 2020. Working alliance was measured with the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR), and depression symptom status was assessed by using the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). All measures were administered by the conversational agent in the mobile app. WAI-SR scores were compared to those in scientific literature abstracted from recent reviews. Data from 36,070 Woebot users were included in the analysis. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78 years, and 57.48% (20,734/36,070) of participants reported that they were female. The mean PHQ-2 score was 3.03 (SD 1.79), and 54.67% (19,719/36,070) of users scored over the cutoff score of 3 for depression screening. Within 5 days of initial app use, the mean WAI-SR score was 3.36 (SD 0.8) and the mean bond subscale score was 3.8 (SD 1.0), which was comparable to those in recent studies from the literature on traditional, outpatient, individual CBT and group CBT (mean bond subscale scores of 4 and 3.8, respectively). PHQ-2 scores at baseline weakly correlated with bond scores (r=-0.04; P<.001); however, users with depression and those without depression had high bond scores of 3.45. Although bonds are often presumed to be the exclusive domain of human therapeutic relationships, our findings challenge the notion that digital therapeutics are incapable of establishing a therapeutic bond with users. Future research might investigate the role of bonds as mediators of clinical outcomes, since boosting the engagement and efficacy of digital therapeutics could have major public health benefits.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are far more patients in mental distress than there is time available for mental health professionals to support them. Although digital tools may help mitigate this issue, critics have suggested that technological solutions that lack human empathy will prevent a bond or therapeutic alliance from being formed, thereby narrowing these solutions' efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to investigate whether users of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based conversational agent would report therapeutic bond levels that are similar to those in literature about other CBT modalities, including face-to-face therapy, group CBT, and other digital interventions that do not use a conversational agent.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional, retrospective study design was used to analyze aggregate, deidentified data from adult users who self-referred to a CBT-based, fully automated conversational agent (Woebot) between November 2019 and August 2020. Working alliance was measured with the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR), and depression symptom status was assessed by using the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). All measures were administered by the conversational agent in the mobile app. WAI-SR scores were compared to those in scientific literature abstracted from recent reviews.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data from 36,070 Woebot users were included in the analysis. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78 years, and 57.48% (20,734/36,070) of participants reported that they were female. The mean PHQ-2 score was 3.03 (SD 1.79), and 54.67% (19,719/36,070) of users scored over the cutoff score of 3 for depression screening. Within 5 days of initial app use, the mean WAI-SR score was 3.36 (SD 0.8) and the mean bond subscale score was 3.8 (SD 1.0), which was comparable to those in recent studies from the literature on traditional, outpatient, individual CBT and group CBT (mean bond subscale scores of 4 and 3.8, respectively). PHQ-2 scores at baseline weakly correlated with bond scores (r=-0.04; P<.001); however, users with depression and those without depression had high bond scores of 3.45.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although bonds are often presumed to be the exclusive domain of human therapeutic relationships, our findings challenge the notion that digital therapeutics are incapable of establishing a therapeutic bond with users. Future research might investigate the role of bonds as mediators of clinical outcomes, since boosting the engagement and efficacy of digital therapeutics could have major public health benefits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33973854
pii: v5i5e27868
doi: 10.2196/27868
pmc: PMC8150389
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e27868Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
©Alison Darcy, Jade Daniels, David Salinger, Paul Wicks, Athena Robinson. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 11.05.2021.
Références
Cogn Behav Ther. 2019 Jul;48(4):285-299
pubmed: 30372653
BJPsych Open. 2019 Jan;5(1):e15
pubmed: 30762511
Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2021 Jan-Apr;21(1):100196
pubmed: 32904715
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;5(10):845-854
pubmed: 30170964
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 23;23(3):e24850
pubmed: 33755028
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2010 May-Jun;17(3):231-9
pubmed: 20013760
BMC Psychiatry. 2011 Dec 06;11:189
pubmed: 22145768
Clin Psychol Rev. 2017 Dec;58:49-58
pubmed: 28993103
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 May 16;1:16
pubmed: 31304301
Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Oct;59(1):21-30
pubmed: 16198215
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017 May;37(5):137-148
pubmed: 28493658
J Affect Disord. 2018 Feb;227:455-462
pubmed: 29154168
JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):552-553
pubmed: 32706386
JMIR Ment Health. 2020 Apr 15;7(4):e16398
pubmed: 32293577
J Psychosom Res. 2005 Feb;58(2):163-71
pubmed: 15820844
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2018 May;25(3):446-456
pubmed: 29484770
Psychother Res. 2017 Sep;27(5):511-524
pubmed: 26732852
Internet Interv. 2018 Jul 26;13:108-115
pubmed: 30206525
JMIR Ment Health. 2017 Jun 06;4(2):e19
pubmed: 28588005