The Usability and Experience of Artificial Intelligence‐Based Conversational Agents in Health Education for Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT Background Artificial intelligence‐based conversational agents (CAs) have shown transformative potential in healthcare, yet their application in cancer health education has remained underexplored, particularly regarding usability and patients' experiences. Existing reviews lack a dedicated focus on user perspectives, limiting insights into how CAs can be optimised for patient needs. Aim To explore the usability and experience of artificial intelligence‐based conversational agents in health education for cancer from the user perspective. Design A scoping review was conducted with the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Reviews conduct guidance and reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist. Methods A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore Digital Library and ACM Digital Library from their inception to March 6, 2024. The references to the articles included were also searched. The Pillar Integration Process was employed to chart data. Results A total of 12 studies were included in this scoping review, which revealed that CAs supported diverse educational contexts, including cancer‐related knowledge (41.7%), pretest genetics (33.3%), self‐management (16.7%) and psychological skills (8.3%). Three studies reported that patients preferred interactions with multiple options or ‘read more’ functions. Patients were generally optimistic about the CAs and reported that CAs provided informational, physical, and psychological support for them. However, limitations such as insufficient customisation, lack of empathy, and defects in understanding free‐input questions were noted. Conclusion This review demonstrated that CAs are promising complementary tools in cancer education, alleviating healthcare burdens while enhancing patient engagement, which was particularly critical in resource‐limited settings. However, clinical implementation requires more rigorous validation of safety protocols and high‐quality original studies. Relevance to Clinical Practice Nurses and policymakers should consider CAs valuable tools to enhance cancer health education, provided that they align with patient needs and institutional safety standards.