Embodied Conversational Agents Providing Motivational Interviewing to Improve Health-Related Behaviors: Scoping Review

Background: Embodied conversational agents (ECAs) are advanced human-like interfaces that engage users in natural face-to-face conversations and interactions. These traits position ECAs as innovative tools for delivering interventions for promoting health-related behavior adoption. This includes motivational interviewing (MI), a therapeutic approach that combines brief interventions with motivational techniques to encourage the adoption of healthier behaviors. Objective: This study aims to identify the health issues addressed by ECAs delivering MI interventions, explore the key characteristics of these ECAs (eg, appearance, dialogue mechanism, emotional model), analyze the implementation of MI principles and techniques within ECAs, and examine the evaluation methods and primary outcomes of studies that use ECAs providing MI interventions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) methodology. Our systematic search covered the PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital, and PsycINFO databases for papers published between January 2008 and December 2022. We included papers describing ECAs developed for delivering MI interventions targeting health-related behaviors and excluded articles that did not describe ECAs with human appearances and without the necessary evaluation or MI explanation. In a multistage process, 3 independent reviewers performed screening and data extraction, and the collected data were synthesized using a narrative approach. Results: The initial search identified 404 articles, of which 3.5% (n=14) were included in the review. ECAs primarily focused on reducing alcohol use (n=5, 36%), took on female representations (n=9, 64%), and gave limited consideration to user ethnicity (n=9, 64%). Most of them used rules-driven dialogue mechanisms (n=13, 93%), include emotional behavior to convey empathy (n=8, 57%) but without an automatic recognition of user emotions (n=12, 86%). Regarding MI implementation, of 14 studies, 3 (21%) covered all MI principles, 4 (29%) included all processes, and none covered all techniques. Most studies (8/14, 57%) conducted acceptability, usability, and user experience assessments, whereas a smaller proportion (4/14, 29%) used randomized controlled trials to evaluate behavior changes. Overall, the studies reported positive results regarding acceptability, usability, and user experience and showed promising outcomes in changes in attitudes, beliefs, motivation, and behavior. Conclusions: This study revealed significant advancements in the use of ECAs for delivering MI interventions aimed at promoting healthier behaviors over the past 15 years. However, this review emphasizes the need for a more in-depth exploration of ECA characteristics. In addition, there is a need for the enhanced integration of MI principles, processes, and techniques into ECAs. Although acceptability and usability have received considerable attention, there is a compelling argument for placing a stronger emphasis on assessing changes in attitudes, beliefs, motivation, and behavior. Consequently, inclusion of more randomized controlled trials is essential for comprehensive intervention evaluations.