Assessing the Impact of Conversational Artificial Intelligence in the Treatment of Stress and Anxiety in Aging Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial

Morena Danieli, Tommaso Ciulli, Seyed Mahed Mousavi, Giorgia Silvestri, Simone Barbato, Lorenzo Di Natale, Giuseppe Riccardi, Morena Danieli, Tommaso Ciulli, Seyed Mahed Mousavi, Giorgia Silvestri, Simone Barbato, Lorenzo Di Natale, Giuseppe Riccardi

Abstract

Background: While mental health applications are increasingly becoming available for large populations of users, there is a lack of controlled trials on the impacts of such applications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-empowered agents have been evaluated when assisting adults with cognitive impairments; however, few applications are available for aging adults who are still actively working. These adults often have high stress levels related to changes in their work places, and related symptoms eventually affect their quality of life.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the contribution of TEO (Therapy Empowerment Opportunity), a mobile personal health care agent with conversational AI. TEO promotes mental health and well-being by engaging patients in conversations to recollect the details of events that increased their anxiety and by providing therapeutic exercises and suggestions.

Methods: The study was based on a protocolized intervention for stress and anxiety management. Participants with stress symptoms and mild-to-moderate anxiety received an 8-week cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention delivered remotely. A group of participants also interacted with the agent TEO. The participants were active workers aged over 55 years. The experimental groups were as follows: group 1, traditional therapy; group 2, traditional therapy and mobile health (mHealth) agent; group 3, mHealth agent; and group 4, no treatment (assigned to a waiting list). Symptoms related to stress (anxiety, physical disease, and depression) were assessed prior to treatment (T1), at the end (T2), and 3 months after treatment (T3), using standardized psychological questionnaires. Moreover, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and General Anxiety Disorders-7 scales were administered before the intervention (T1), at mid-term (T2), at the end of the intervention (T3), and after 3 months (T4). At the end of the intervention, participants in groups 1, 2, and 3 filled in a satisfaction questionnaire.

Results: Despite randomization, statistically significant differences between groups were present at T1. Group 4 showed lower levels of anxiety and depression compared with group 1, and lower levels of stress compared with group 2. Comparisons between groups at T2 and T3 did not show significant differences in outcomes. Analyses conducted within groups showed significant differences between times in group 2, with greater improvements in the levels of stress and scores related to overall well-being. A general worsening trend between T2 and T3 was detected in all groups, with a significant increase in stress levels in group 2. Group 2 reported higher levels of perceived usefulness and satisfaction.

Conclusions: No statistically significant differences could be observed between participants who used the mHealth app alone or within the traditional CBT setting. However, the results indicated significant differences within the groups that received treatment and a stable tendency toward improvement, which was limited to individual perceptions of stress-related symptoms.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04809090; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04809090.

Keywords: conversational artificial intelligence; mHealth; mental health care; mobile health; personal health care agent.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Morena Danieli, Tommaso Ciulli, Seyed Mahed Mousavi, Giorgia Silvestri, Simone Barbato, Lorenzo Di Natale, Giuseppe Riccardi. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 23.09.2022.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) diagram shows the flow of the intervention, the enrollment of participants, their allocation to treatment, their follow-up, and data analysis. PHA: personal health care agent; SMT-CBT: stress management training-cognitive behavioral therapy; T2: end of the treatment; T3: 3 months after the treatment.

References

    1. Del Castillo Aida Ponces. Occupational safety and health in the EU: back to basics. In: Vanhercke Bart, Natali David, Bouget Denis., editors. Social policy in the European Union: state of play 2016. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute and European Social Observatory; 2017. pp. 131–155.
    1. Varianou-Mikellidou C, Boustras G, Dimopoulos C, Wybo J, Guldenmund FW, Nicolaidou O, Anyfantis I. Occupational health and safety management in the context of an ageing workforce. Safety Science. 2019 Jul;116:231–244. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.009.
    1. Lecca L, Campagna M, Portoghese I, Galletta M, Mucci N, Meloni M, Cocco P. Work related stress, well-being and cardiovascular risk among flight logistic workers: An observational study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Sep 07;15(9):1952. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15091952. ijerph15091952
    1. Götz S, Hoven H, Müller A, Dragano N, Wahrendorf M. Age differences in the association between stressful work and sickness absence among full-time employed workers: evidence from the German socio-economic panel. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018 May 28;91(4):479–496. doi: 10.1007/s00420-018-1298-3. 10.1007/s00420-018-1298-3
    1. Sara J, Prasad M, Eleid M, Zhang M, Widmer R, Lerman A. Association between work‐related stress and coronary heart disease: A review of prospective studies through the job strain, effort‐reward balance, and organizational justice models. JAHA. 2018 May;7(9):a. doi: 10.1161/jaha.117.008073.
    1. Pieper C, Schröer S, Eilerts AL. Evidence of workplace interventions-A systematic review of systematic reviews. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 23;16(19):3553. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193553. ijerph16193553
    1. Carolan S, Harris PR, Cavanagh K. Improving employee well-being and effectiveness: Systematic review and meta-analysis of web-based psychological interventions delivered in the workplace. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jul 26;19(7):e271. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7583. v19i7e271
    1. Abd-Alrazaq AA, Alajlani M, Ali N, Denecke K, Bewick BM, Househ M. Perceptions and opinions of patients about mental health chatbots: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 13;23(1):e17828. doi: 10.2196/17828. v23i1e17828
    1. Molodynski A, McLellan A, Craig T, Bhugra D. What does COVID mean for UK mental health care? Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2021 Nov 10;67(7):823–825. doi: 10.1177/0020764020932592.
    1. Rossi R, Socci V, Talevi D, Mensi S, Niolu C, Pacitti F, Di Marco A, Rossi A, Siracusano A, Di Lorenzo G. COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures impact on mental health among the general population in Italy. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 7;11:790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00790.
    1. Abd-Alrazaq AA, Alajlani M, Alalwan AA, Bewick BM, Gardner P, Househ M. An overview of the features of chatbots in mental health: A scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2019 Dec;132:103978. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.103978.S1386-5056(19)30716-6
    1. Danieli M, Ciulli T, Mousavi SM, Riccardi G. A conversational artificial intelligence agent for a mental health care app: Evaluation study of its participatory design. JMIR Form Res. 2021 Dec 01;5(12):e30053. doi: 10.2196/30053. v5i12e30053
    1. Berwick DM. Choices for the "new normal". JAMA. 2020 Jun 02;323(21):2125–2126. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6949.2765699
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals. 2002 Sep 01;32(9):509–515. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Monahan PO, Löwe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: Prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Mar 06;146(5):317. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004.
    1. Facebook users in Italy January 2021. NapoleonCat Statistics. [2022-03-08].
    1. CO-ADAPT. [2022-08-24].
    1. Conti S, Bonazzi S, Laiacona M, Masina M, Coralli MV. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-Italian version: regression based norms and equivalent scores. Neurol Sci. 2015 Feb 20;36(2):209–14. doi: 10.1007/s10072-014-1921-3.
    1. Riccardi G. Towards healthcare personal agents. RFMIR '14: Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Roadmapping the Future of Multimodal Interaction Research including Business Opportunities and Challenges; 2014 Workshop on Roadmapping the Future of Multimodal Interaction Research including Business Opportunities and Challenges; November 16, 2014; Istanbul, Turkey. 2014. pp. 53–56.
    1. Mousavi SM, Cervone A, Danieli M, Riccardi G. Would you like to tell me more? Generating a corpus of psychotherapy dialogues. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Medical Conversations; Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Medical Conversations; June 2021; Online. 2021. pp. 1–9.
    1. Mousavi SM, Negro R, Riccardi G. An Unsupervised Approach to Extract Life-Events from Personal Narratives in the Mental Health Domain. CEUR. [2022-08-23]. .
    1. Sullivan GM, Artino AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Dec;5(4):541–2. doi: 10.4300/JGME-5-4-18. JGME-5-4-18
    1. Sagar-Ouriaghli I, Godfrey E, Bridge L, Meade L, Brown JSL. Improving mental health service utilization among men: A systematic review and synthesis of behavior change techniques within interventions targeting help-seeking. Am J Mens Health. 2019 Oct 27;13(3):1557988319857009–1286. doi: 10.1177/1557988319857009. 0006-291X(75)90498-2
    1. Liddon L, Kingerlee R, Barry JA. Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help-seeking. Br J Clin Psychol. 2018 Mar 09;57(1):42–58. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12147.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する