Our Research

Outputs

Perspectives of parents and healthcare professionals on using chatbots to support parents in child health

Source Proceedings of the The 5th Biennial African Human Computer Interaction Conference, 4-8 November, Cairo, Egypt
Authors J.C. Da SilvaB. FelixL. MeoliX. NtingaR. MeloY. JoolayS. TillM. DensmoreF. Nunes
PUBLICATION YEAR: 2025
OUTPUT TYPE: Chapter in Monograph
Print HSRC Library: shelf number 9815156
handle https://doi.org/10.14749/31870414
Recent advancements in chatbot technology have accelerated the expansion of chatbots to many different areas. In child health, chatbots are thought to be uniquely positioned to support parent education and respond to parentsâ?? doubts. However, the uptake of chatbots remains low in child health, which could be a consequence of the misalignment between usersâ?? perspectives and technology design. There are scant studies investigating parentsâ?? and healthcare professionalsâ?? perspectives on using chatbots for child health, and none comparing both perspectives, thus, in this paper we conducted 17 interviews with healthcare professionals working in paediatrics in Portugal and South Africa to explore the strategies they use to support first-time parentsâ?? education. Additionally, we held 8 co-design workshops with 36 first-time and recent parents from the same countries to discuss the concept and design of chatbots. Our findings showed how healthcare professionals see the potential of chatbots in supporting parentsâ?? decision-making processes and improving their health literacy, but never focusing on emergency situations. Parents believed chatbots should provide simple language content, coupled with heuristics to follow autonomously, working in complement to their healthcare professionals. Reflecting on the study findings, we present three key design tensions to improve the effectiveness of chatbots in child health, namely: (i) balancing participant agency with equality regarding child health responsibilities, (ii) structuring or opening access to content, and (iii) considering accessible vs medical language.