Skip to main content
Cornell University
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > cs > arXiv:2507.08211

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Computer Science > Computers and Society

arXiv:2507.08211 (cs)
[Submitted on 10 Jul 2025]

Title:Effect of Static vs. Conversational AI-Generated Messages on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors:Neil K. R. Sehgal, Manuel Tonneau, Andy Tan, Shivan J. Mehta, Alison Buttenheim, Lyle Ungar, Anish K. Agarwal, Sharath Chandra Guntuku
View a PDF of the paper titled Effect of Static vs. Conversational AI-Generated Messages on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial, by Neil K. R. Sehgal and Manuel Tonneau and Andy Tan and Shivan J. Mehta and Alison Buttenheim and Lyle Ungar and Anish K. Agarwal and Sharath Chandra Guntuku
View PDF
Abstract:Large language model (LLM) chatbots show increasing promise in persuasive communication. Yet their real-world utility remains uncertain, particularly in clinical settings where sustained conversations are difficult to scale. In a pre-registered randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 915 U.S. adults (ages 45-75) who had never completed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Participants were randomized to: (1) no message control, (2) expert-written patient materials, (3) single AI-generated message, or (4) a motivational interviewing chatbot. All participants were required to remain in their assigned condition for at least three minutes. Both AI arms tailored content using participant's self-reported demographics including age and gender. Both AI interventions significantly increased stool test intentions by over 12 points (12.9-13.8/100), compared to a 7.5 gain for expert materials (p<.001 for all comparisons). While the AI arms outperformed the no message control for colonoscopy intent, neither showed improvement xover expert materials. Notably, for both outcomes, the chatbot did not outperform the single AI message in boosting intent despite participants spending ~3.5 minutes more on average engaging with it. These findings suggest concise, demographically tailored AI messages may offer a more scalable and clinically viable path to health behavior change than more complex conversational agents and generic time intensive expert-written materials. Moreover, LLMs appear more persuasive for lesser-known and less-invasive screening approaches like stool testing, but may be less effective for entrenched preferences like colonoscopy. Future work should examine which facets of personalization drive behavior change, whether integrating structural supports can translate these modest intent gains into completed screenings, and which health behaviors are most responsive to AI-supported guidance.
Subjects: Computers and Society (cs.CY)
Cite as: arXiv:2507.08211 [cs.CY]
  (or arXiv:2507.08211v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.08211
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Neil Sehgal [view email]
[v1] Thu, 10 Jul 2025 22:46:43 UTC (3,716 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Effect of Static vs. Conversational AI-Generated Messages on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial, by Neil K. R. Sehgal and Manuel Tonneau and Andy Tan and Shivan J. Mehta and Alison Buttenheim and Lyle Ungar and Anish K. Agarwal and Sharath Chandra Guntuku
  • View PDF
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
cs.CY
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2025-07
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack