{"title":"评论:光环效应:医疗聊天机器人用户对信息隐私的看法。","authors":"Matthew DeCamp, Jessica R. Ellis","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We thank Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit for their comments [<span>1</span>] on our paper [<span>2</span>], which found sociodemographic differences in how patients perceive information privacy related to information they shared with a patient-facing chatbot that was linked to the electronic health record (EHR).</p><p>Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit express concern that our study's sampling method could have affected our results. We agree and appreciate the opportunity to expand on this point. Our study enrolled existing chatbot users within a single large, multi-site healthcare system. The perspectives of those who have never used the chatbot, or who might not want to use the chatbot because of privacy concerns, are necessarily not included. This is why we were particularly cautious in interpreting our findings regarding race or ethnicity. Other studies—for example, in biobanking—have found that race or ethnicity and mistrust may result in greater privacy concerns among certain people, such as Black or African-American individuals in the United States [<span>3</span>]. The fact that our findings contradict other research led us to conclude that this finding should be the subject of future study within more generalizable samples or with specific attention to recruiting individuals who may avoid chatbot interactions altogether.</p><p>As a result, we agree with Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit about the need for additional research in more generalizable settings. Nevertheless, our findings also suggest caution in interpreting findings from surveys of the general public abstracted from the health systems where they receive medical care. If the “halo effect” is a true phenomenon, it would be incomplete to ask patients about generic, patient-facing chatbots delinked from their own health system; or, at the very least, it would require accounting for where patients receive care and for mistrust in health systems [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Regarding our study's representativeness of older adults, we also emphasize that older adults' experiences with chatbots and their preferences for privacy are not homogenous. Another group recently reported on older adults' preferences for a caregiving chatbot and stressed that older adults are not homogenously unfamiliar with or resistant to technology [<span>5</span>]. Rather than estimate a definitive preference for privacy among such a large and diverse group, our study describes an explanation for older adults who associate these chatbots with a particular health system.</p><p>One point deserves clarification. Our study found that individuals who reported higher educational attainment were more concerned about privacy, not less—this was incorrectly reported in the abstract but was correct in the manuscript body. The abstract was corrected online at the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society on April 4, 2025. Nevertheless, we hope that our study's findings motivate more generalizable and more inclusive research as Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit recommend.</p><p>All listed authors contributed significantly to the work. Matthew DeCamp: Concept and design, preparation of manuscript. Jessica R. Ellis: Concept and design, preparation of manuscript.</p><p>This research was funded by a “Making a Difference Grant” from the Greenwall Foundation. The funder had no involvement in study design; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; or the decision to submit for publication.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This publication is linked to a related comment by Daungsupawong and Wiwanitkit. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19542.</p>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"73 9","pages":"2941-2942"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19544","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reply to: Comment on: The Halo Effect: Perceptions of Information Privacy Among Healthcare Chatbot Users\",\"authors\":\"Matthew DeCamp, Jessica R. Ellis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19544\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We thank Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit for their comments [<span>1</span>] on our paper [<span>2</span>], which found sociodemographic differences in how patients perceive information privacy related to information they shared with a patient-facing chatbot that was linked to the electronic health record (EHR).</p><p>Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit express concern that our study's sampling method could have affected our results. We agree and appreciate the opportunity to expand on this point. Our study enrolled existing chatbot users within a single large, multi-site healthcare system. The perspectives of those who have never used the chatbot, or who might not want to use the chatbot because of privacy concerns, are necessarily not included. This is why we were particularly cautious in interpreting our findings regarding race or ethnicity. Other studies—for example, in biobanking—have found that race or ethnicity and mistrust may result in greater privacy concerns among certain people, such as Black or African-American individuals in the United States [<span>3</span>]. The fact that our findings contradict other research led us to conclude that this finding should be the subject of future study within more generalizable samples or with specific attention to recruiting individuals who may avoid chatbot interactions altogether.</p><p>As a result, we agree with Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit about the need for additional research in more generalizable settings. Nevertheless, our findings also suggest caution in interpreting findings from surveys of the general public abstracted from the health systems where they receive medical care. If the “halo effect” is a true phenomenon, it would be incomplete to ask patients about generic, patient-facing chatbots delinked from their own health system; or, at the very least, it would require accounting for where patients receive care and for mistrust in health systems [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Regarding our study's representativeness of older adults, we also emphasize that older adults' experiences with chatbots and their preferences for privacy are not homogenous. Another group recently reported on older adults' preferences for a caregiving chatbot and stressed that older adults are not homogenously unfamiliar with or resistant to technology [<span>5</span>]. Rather than estimate a definitive preference for privacy among such a large and diverse group, our study describes an explanation for older adults who associate these chatbots with a particular health system.</p><p>One point deserves clarification. Our study found that individuals who reported higher educational attainment were more concerned about privacy, not less—this was incorrectly reported in the abstract but was correct in the manuscript body. The abstract was corrected online at the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society on April 4, 2025. Nevertheless, we hope that our study's findings motivate more generalizable and more inclusive research as Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit recommend.</p><p>All listed authors contributed significantly to the work. Matthew DeCamp: Concept and design, preparation of manuscript. Jessica R. Ellis: Concept and design, preparation of manuscript.</p><p>This research was funded by a “Making a Difference Grant” from the Greenwall Foundation. The funder had no involvement in study design; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; or the decision to submit for publication.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This publication is linked to a related comment by Daungsupawong and Wiwanitkit. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19542.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\"73 9\",\"pages\":\"2941-2942\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19544\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19544\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19544","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们感谢dr。Daungsupawong和Wiwanikit在我们的论文[2]上发表了评论[1],该论文发现,患者如何感知与他们与与电子健康记录(EHR)相关的面向患者的聊天机器人共享的信息相关的信息隐私存在社会人口统计学差异。Daungsupawong和Wiwanikit担心我们研究的抽样方法可能会影响我们的结果。我们同意并感谢有机会就这一点展开讨论。我们的研究招募了一个大型、多站点医疗保健系统中的现有聊天机器人用户。那些从未使用过聊天机器人的人,或者由于隐私问题可能不想使用聊天机器人的人的观点,必然不包括在内。这就是为什么我们在解释关于种族或民族的研究结果时特别谨慎的原因。其他研究——例如,在生物银行——发现种族或民族和不信任可能会导致某些人更关注隐私,比如美国的黑人或非裔美国人。事实上,我们的发现与其他研究相矛盾,这使我们得出结论,这一发现应该成为未来研究的主题,在更广泛的样本中,或者特别注意招募那些可能完全避免聊天机器人互动的个人。因此,我们同意dr。Daungsupawong和Wiwanikit认为需要在更普遍的情况下进行额外的研究。然而,我们的研究结果也表明,在解释从接受医疗保健的卫生系统中提取的普通公众调查结果时要谨慎。如果“光环效应”是一个真实的现象,那么向患者询问与他们自己的医疗系统脱节的通用的、面向患者的聊天机器人是不完整的;或者,至少,它需要考虑到病人在哪里接受治疗以及对卫生系统的不信任。关于我们的研究对老年人的代表性,我们也强调老年人对聊天机器人的体验和他们对隐私的偏好是不均匀的。另一个小组最近报告了老年人对看护聊天机器人的偏好,并强调老年人并不完全不熟悉或抵制技术。我们的研究并没有估计这样一个庞大而多样化的群体对隐私的明确偏好,而是描述了老年人将这些聊天机器人与特定医疗系统联系在一起的一种解释。有一点值得澄清。我们的研究发现,报告受教育程度较高的人更关心隐私,而不是更少——这在摘要中是错误的,但在手稿正文中是正确的。该摘要于2025年4月4日在《美国老年医学会杂志》(Journal of American Geriatrics Society)上进行了在线更正。尽管如此,我们希望我们的研究结果能够激发更广泛和更包容的研究。Daungsupawong和Wiwanikit推荐。所有列出的作者都对这项工作做出了重大贡献。马修·迪坎普:概念和设计,准备手稿。杰西卡R.埃利斯:概念和设计,准备手稿。这项研究是由Greenwall基金会的“与众不同”基金资助的。资助者没有参与研究设计;数据的收集、管理、分析和解释;或者决定提交出版。作者声明无利益冲突。本出版物链接到Daungsupawong和Wiwanitkit的相关评论。要查看本文,请访问https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19542。
Reply to: Comment on: The Halo Effect: Perceptions of Information Privacy Among Healthcare Chatbot Users
We thank Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit for their comments [1] on our paper [2], which found sociodemographic differences in how patients perceive information privacy related to information they shared with a patient-facing chatbot that was linked to the electronic health record (EHR).
Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit express concern that our study's sampling method could have affected our results. We agree and appreciate the opportunity to expand on this point. Our study enrolled existing chatbot users within a single large, multi-site healthcare system. The perspectives of those who have never used the chatbot, or who might not want to use the chatbot because of privacy concerns, are necessarily not included. This is why we were particularly cautious in interpreting our findings regarding race or ethnicity. Other studies—for example, in biobanking—have found that race or ethnicity and mistrust may result in greater privacy concerns among certain people, such as Black or African-American individuals in the United States [3]. The fact that our findings contradict other research led us to conclude that this finding should be the subject of future study within more generalizable samples or with specific attention to recruiting individuals who may avoid chatbot interactions altogether.
As a result, we agree with Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit about the need for additional research in more generalizable settings. Nevertheless, our findings also suggest caution in interpreting findings from surveys of the general public abstracted from the health systems where they receive medical care. If the “halo effect” is a true phenomenon, it would be incomplete to ask patients about generic, patient-facing chatbots delinked from their own health system; or, at the very least, it would require accounting for where patients receive care and for mistrust in health systems [4].
Regarding our study's representativeness of older adults, we also emphasize that older adults' experiences with chatbots and their preferences for privacy are not homogenous. Another group recently reported on older adults' preferences for a caregiving chatbot and stressed that older adults are not homogenously unfamiliar with or resistant to technology [5]. Rather than estimate a definitive preference for privacy among such a large and diverse group, our study describes an explanation for older adults who associate these chatbots with a particular health system.
One point deserves clarification. Our study found that individuals who reported higher educational attainment were more concerned about privacy, not less—this was incorrectly reported in the abstract but was correct in the manuscript body. The abstract was corrected online at the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society on April 4, 2025. Nevertheless, we hope that our study's findings motivate more generalizable and more inclusive research as Drs. Daungsupawong and Wiwanikit recommend.
All listed authors contributed significantly to the work. Matthew DeCamp: Concept and design, preparation of manuscript. Jessica R. Ellis: Concept and design, preparation of manuscript.
This research was funded by a “Making a Difference Grant” from the Greenwall Foundation. The funder had no involvement in study design; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; or the decision to submit for publication.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
This publication is linked to a related comment by Daungsupawong and Wiwanitkit. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19542.
期刊介绍:
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.