This study investigates a novel, agentic Large Language Model (LLM) architecture designed to facilitate Shared Decision-Making (SDM) in healthcare. While patients increasingly use standard LLMs for health information, these models often struggle with multi-turn conversations and fail to adapt to varying reading levels, disadvantaging vulnerable groups. By utilizing an agentic state-machine, this project aims to overcome common LLM deficits-such as context loss and uncritical agreement-to ensure clinically accurate, participatory patient conversations. The study evaluates whether this architecture improves informed decision-making compared to standard LLMs, particularly for patients with low health literacy.
Background \& Current State of Research Shared Decision-Making is widely recognized as the gold standard of patient-centered care. However, its successful implementation in clinical practice is frequently hindered by systemic time and budget constraints. Consequently, patients are increasingly turning to Large Language Models to independently access health information and navigate their medical options. The Problem: Limitations of Standard LLMs Recent studies indicate that using standard LLMs can digitally reproduce existing health inequalities and participation gaps. These models struggle to adapt to different reading levels without a significant loss in quality. While highly developed prompting techniques can enhance clinical accuracy, the results remain highly variable depending on the specific model and technique used. A central deficit becomes apparent in multi-turn interactions, which are essential for a natural SDM workflow. In these prolonged conversations, standard LLMs tend to exhibit "context rot," leading to a sharp decline in accuracy as the dialogue progresses. This issue is further exacerbated by model sycophancy (an uncritical tendency to agree with the user) and completion eagerness (a tendency to prematurely conclude the conversation). Because current LLMs often fail to meet evidence-based reporting standards and lack systematic validation of user comprehension, the burden of fact-checking remains entirely on the user. This dynamic significantly disadvantages vulnerable groups, particularly those with lower health literacy. Project Objectives and Research Questions This project proposes a technical and clinical solution to these challenges through the following core research questions: Technical-Conceptual Framework: How can we develop a transparent and replicable workflow that formalizes the SDM process through an agentic state-machine, thereby eliminating structural deficits of LLMs (e.g., context rot and sycophancy) in prolonged interactions? Clinical Evaluation (Primary Objective): Does this newly developed agentic LLM architecture achieve higher scores in participatory conversation management and demonstrate a significantly greater objective increase in informed decision-making among users during multi-turn interactions, compared to a standard baseline LLM? Health Equity (Secondary Objective): To what extent can this agentic LLM architecture guarantee effective participatory conversation management for vulnerable patient groups with low health literacy?
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
330
An interactive AI chatbot built with an agentic state-machine architecture designed to systematically guide users through the Shared Decision-Making process regarding mammography screening, with built-in ethical guardrails to prevent hallucination and sycophancy.
An unmodified, standard generative Large Language Model chatbot acting as a baseline control, used by participants to discuss mammography screening.
The standard digital informational brochure on mammography screening provided by the german Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), used as a usual care baseline for patient education.
Patient-Reported Quality of Shared Decision-Making
Assessed using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). This validated instrument measures the patient's perceived involvement in the medical decision-making process. The questionnaire consists of 9 items, each rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 ("completely disagree") to 5 ("completely agree"). The raw scores are summed and multiplied by 20/9 to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate a higher perceived quality and greater patient involvement in shared decision-making.
Time frame: Day 1
Multidimensional Informed Decision-Making
Based on Marteau's conceptualization of informed decision-making. An informed decision is achieved when a participant has sufficient objective knowledge about mammography screening and their behavioral intention (to screen or not to screen) is congruent with their personal attitudes toward the screening. This is calculated as a composite measure integrating an objective knowledge test, an attitude assessment, and a screening intention question. Higher objective knowledge scores and higher attitude-intention congruence indicate a better-informed decision.
Time frame: Day 1
Subjective Decisional Conflict
Assessed using a standardized Decisional Conflict Scale. This measures the participant's perceived uncertainty in choosing a screening option, their clarity of personal values, and their feeling of being supported in decision-making. Scores are transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores indicate less decisional conflict and greater decision certainty.
Time frame: Day 1
Medical Accuracy and Safety of Generated Information
A quantitative and qualitative assessment of the medical accuracy of the AI-generated texts. This is operationalized by counting the frequency (number of occurrences) and categorizing the severity of deviations from established medical evidence (i.e., misinformation or "hallucinations"). These deviations are identified via an integrated ethics module and/or expert review. Lower frequencies and lower severity ratings indicate higher medical accuracy.
Time frame: Day 1
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.