Search

This paper reviews different types of conversational agents used in health care for chronic conditions, examining their underlying communication technology, evaluation measures, and AI methods. A systematic search was performed in February 2021 on PubMed Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ACM Digital Library. Studies were included if they focused on consumers, caregivers, or healthcare professionals in the prevention, treatment, or rehabilitation of chronic diseases, involved conversational agents, and tested the system with human users. The search retrieved 1087 articles. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Out of 26 conversational agents (CAs), 16 were chatbots, seven were embodied conversational agents (ECA), one was a conversational agent in a robot, and another was a relational agent. One agent was not specified. Based on this review, the overall acceptance of CAs by users for the self-management of their chronic conditions is promising. Users' feedback shows helpfulness, satisfaction, and ease of use in more than half of included studies. Although many users in the studies appear to feel more comfortable with CAs, there is still a lack of reliable and comparable evidence to determine the efficacy of AI-enabled CAs for chronic health conditions due to the insufficient reporting of technical implementation details.

The launch of new tools in late 2022 heralded significant growth in attention to the impacts of generative AI (GenAI) in education. Claims of the potential impact on education are contested, but there are clear risks of inappropriate use particularly where GenAI aligns poorly with learning aims. In response, in mid-2023, the Australian Federal Government held an inquiry, calling for public submissions. This inquiry offers a lens onto the policy framing of GenAI in education and provides the object of investigation for this paper. We use the inquiry submissions, extracting structured claims from each. This extraction is provided as an open data set for further research, while this paper focuses on our analysis of the policy recommendations made. Implications for practice or policy • For practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. the paper provides an overview and synthesis of submission recommendations and their themes, by source type. • For respondents to the inquiry (sources), the paper supports reflection regarding synergies and gaps in recommendations, pointing to opportunity for collaboration and policy development. • For stakeholders with responsibility for aspects of policy delivery and/or those applying a critical lens to the inquiry and recommendation framing(s), the paper offers actionable insight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles within the issue on topics including the ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies, the representation of library activities in national AI plans, and a review of curricula in Australia to identify the framing of digital technologies.