arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2602.05628cs.HCcs.AIcs.CL
收藏

人工智能聊天机器人与人类医疗专业人员:关于患者护理中同理心的系统综述和荟萃分析

AI chatbots versus human healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of empathy in patient care

University of Nottingham(诺丁汉大学);University of Leicester(莱斯特大学)

Alastair Howcroft, Amber Bennett-Weston, Ahmad Khan, Joseff Griffiths, Simon Gay, Jeremy Howick

AI总结:

本文通过系统综述和荟萃分析,发现AI聊天机器人在文本场景中普遍被感知为比人类医疗专业人员更具同理心。

摘要:

背景:同理心被广泛认为可以改善患者结果,包括减少疼痛和焦虑以及提高满意度,其缺失可能导致危害。同时,基于人工智能(AI)的聊天机器人在医疗领域的应用正在迅速扩展,有五分之一的一般医生使用生成式AI来协助完成诸如撰写信件等任务。一些研究表明,AI聊天机器人在同理心方面可能优于人类医疗专业人员(HCPs),但研究结果混杂且缺乏综合分析。数据来源:我们搜索了多个数据库,寻找比较使用大语言模型的AI聊天机器人与人类HCPs在同理心测量上的研究。我们使用ROBINS-I评估偏倚风险,并在可行时使用随机效应荟萃分析综合结果,同时避免重复计数。共识领域:我们识别出15项研究(2023-2024)。13项研究报告称AI的同理心评分统计学上显著更高,仅两项研究位于皮肤科领域更倾向于人类回应。在15项研究中,13项提供了可提取的数据,并适合汇总。对这些13项研究的荟萃分析,所有研究均使用ChatGPT-3.5/4,显示标准化均差为0.87(95%置信区间,0.54-1.20),倾向于AI(P < .00001),大约相当于在10分量表上增加2分。争议领域:研究依赖于基于文本的评估,忽略了非语言线索,并通过代理评分者评估同理心。发展研究的要点:我们的发现表明,在纯文本场景中,AI聊天机器人通常被感知为比人类HCPs更具同理心。未来研究应通过直接患者评估验证这些发现,并评估新兴的语音启用AI系统是否能提供类似的同理心优势。

英文摘要:

Background: Empathy is widely recognized for improving patient outcomes, including reduced pain and anxiety and improved satisfaction, and its absence can cause harm. Meanwhile, use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots in healthcare is rapidly expanding, with one in five general practitioners using generative AI to assist with tasks such as writing letters. Some studies suggest AI chatbots can outperform human healthcare professionals (HCPs) in empathy, though findings are mixed and lack synthesis. Sources of data: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing AI chatbots using large language models with human HCPs on empathy measures. We assessed risk of bias with ROBINS-I and synthesized findings using random-effects meta-analysis where feasible, whilst avoiding double counting. Areas of agreement: We identified 15 studies (2023-2024). Thirteen studies reported statistically significantly higher empathy ratings for AI, with only two studies situated in dermatology favouring human responses. Of the 15 studies, 13 provided extractable data and were suitable for pooling. Meta-analysis of those 13 studies, all utilising ChatGPT-3.5/4, showed a standardized mean difference of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.54-1.20) favouring AI (P < .00001), roughly equivalent to a two-point increase on a 10-point scale. Areas of controversy: Studies relied on text-based assessments that overlook non-verbal cues and evaluated empathy through proxy raters. Growing points: Our findings indicate that, in text-only scenarios, AI chatbots are frequently perceived as more empathic than human HCPs. Areas timely for developing research: Future research should validate these findings with direct patient evaluations and assess whether emerging voice-enabled AI systems can deliver similar empathic advantages.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑