Evaluating Healthcare Provider and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Messages from a Health System Using the CREATE TRUST Framework.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Matthew R Allen, Vijay M Tiyyala, Armaan Johal, Akhila Chekuri, Elizabeth Conner, Nimit Desai, Kaitlyn Dykes, Tanim Jain, Ah-Reum Jeong, William Mitchell, Sandip P Patel, Karthik Ramesh, Dean Schillinger, Job Schiach, Peter Vu, Davey Smith, Mark Dredze, Emilia Farcas, Michael Hogarth, John W Ayers
{"title":"Evaluating Healthcare Provider and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Messages from a Health System Using the CREATE TRUST Framework.","authors":"Matthew R Allen, Vijay M Tiyyala, Armaan Johal, Akhila Chekuri, Elizabeth Conner, Nimit Desai, Kaitlyn Dykes, Tanim Jain, Ah-Reum Jeong, William Mitchell, Sandip P Patel, Karthik Ramesh, Dean Schillinger, Job Schiach, Peter Vu, Davey Smith, Mark Dredze, Emilia Farcas, Michael Hogarth, John W Ayers","doi":"10.1080/10810730.2026.2707323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integration of artificial intelligence chatbots into healthcare requires rigorous, patient-centered evaluation. This study implements the CREATE TRUST framework-a novel tool evaluating both clinical substance and communication style-to compare responses from healthcare providers (HCPs) and two AI chatbots (GPT-4, Mixtral) to complex clinical questions. In this cross-sectional study, 189 real-world clinical messages from patients with cancer were retrospectively collected from an electronic health record. Anonymized and randomly ordered responses from the HCP, GPT-4, and Mixtral were blindly evaluated in triplicate by a team of oncologists. Evaluators rated each response on every attribute of CREATE TRUST (Correct, Referenced, Empathic, Authentic, Thorough, Engaging, Tailored, Respectful, Understandable, Safe) and provided an overall preference ranking. While HCP responses were ranked first most often (46% of evaluations), there was no significant difference in the overall CREATE TRUST score between HCPs (mean=28.9), GPT-4 (28.4), and Mixtral (28.1). HCPs performed significantly better on Authentic and Tailored. Chatbots scored higher on Empathic and Referenced. Performance was comparable for all other attributes. HCPs demonstrated greater performance variability, authoring a higher proportion of both high- and low-quality responses. HCPs and AI chatbots exhibit comparable overall quality but possess distinct, complementary strengths. HCPs excel in authentic, tailored communication, while chatbots provide more empathic and referenced responses. These findings suggest potential for a synergistic workflow where AI could enhance human-authored messages, improving targeted aspects of communication and mitigating low-quality responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":16026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2026.2707323","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Integration of artificial intelligence chatbots into healthcare requires rigorous, patient-centered evaluation. This study implements the CREATE TRUST framework-a novel tool evaluating both clinical substance and communication style-to compare responses from healthcare providers (HCPs) and two AI chatbots (GPT-4, Mixtral) to complex clinical questions. In this cross-sectional study, 189 real-world clinical messages from patients with cancer were retrospectively collected from an electronic health record. Anonymized and randomly ordered responses from the HCP, GPT-4, and Mixtral were blindly evaluated in triplicate by a team of oncologists. Evaluators rated each response on every attribute of CREATE TRUST (Correct, Referenced, Empathic, Authentic, Thorough, Engaging, Tailored, Respectful, Understandable, Safe) and provided an overall preference ranking. While HCP responses were ranked first most often (46% of evaluations), there was no significant difference in the overall CREATE TRUST score between HCPs (mean=28.9), GPT-4 (28.4), and Mixtral (28.1). HCPs performed significantly better on Authentic and Tailored. Chatbots scored higher on Empathic and Referenced. Performance was comparable for all other attributes. HCPs demonstrated greater performance variability, authoring a higher proportion of both high- and low-quality responses. HCPs and AI chatbots exhibit comparable overall quality but possess distinct, complementary strengths. HCPs excel in authentic, tailored communication, while chatbots provide more empathic and referenced responses. These findings suggest potential for a synergistic workflow where AI could enhance human-authored messages, improving targeted aspects of communication and mitigating low-quality responses.

使用CREATE TRUST框架评估医疗保健提供者和人工智能聊天机器人对来自医疗系统的患者信息的响应。
将人工智能聊天机器人集成到医疗保健中需要严格的、以患者为中心的评估。本研究实现了CREATE TRUST框架——一种评估临床实质和沟通风格的新工具——来比较医疗保健提供者(HCPs)和两个人工智能聊天机器人(GPT-4, Mixtral)对复杂临床问题的反应。在这项横断面研究中,从电子健康记录中回顾性收集了189个来自癌症患者的真实临床信息。一组肿瘤学家对HCP、GPT-4和Mixtral的匿名和随机反应进行了三份盲目评估。评价者根据CREATE TRUST的每个属性(正确、参考、共情、真实、彻底、参与、量身定制、尊重、可理解、安全)对每个回答进行评分,并提供总体偏好排名。虽然HCP反应通常排名第一(46%的评估),但HCP(平均=28.9),GPT-4(28.4)和Mixtral(28.1)之间的总体CREATE TRUST评分没有显着差异。HCPs在Authentic和Tailored上的表现明显更好。聊天机器人在移情和引用方面得分更高。所有其他属性的性能都是可比较的。HCPs表现出更大的性能变异性,产生了更高比例的高质量和低质量响应。hcp和AI聊天机器人整体质量相当,但具有独特的互补优势。hcp擅长真实、量身定制的沟通,而聊天机器人则提供更多同理心和参考的回应。这些发现表明,在协同工作流程中,人工智能可以增强人类撰写的信息,改善沟通的目标方面,并减轻低质量的回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives is the leading journal covering the full breadth of a field that focuses on the communication of health information globally. Articles feature research on: • Developments in the field of health communication; • New media, m-health and interactive health communication; • Health Literacy; • Social marketing; • Global Health; • Shared decision making and ethics; • Interpersonal and mass media communication; • Advances in health diplomacy, psychology, government, policy and education; • Government, civil society and multi-stakeholder initiatives; • Public Private partnerships and • Public Health campaigns. Global in scope, the journal seeks to advance a synergistic relationship between research and practical information. With a focus on promoting the health literacy of the individual, caregiver, provider, community, and those in the health policy, the journal presents research, progress in areas of technology and public health, ethics, politics and policy, and the application of health communication principles. The journal is selective with the highest quality social scientific research including qualitative and quantitative studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书