| Literature DB >> 35659290 |
Akiva Kleinerman1, Ariel Rosenfeld2, Hanan Rosemarin2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health contact centers (also known as Hotlines) offer crisis intervention and counselling by phone calls and online chats. These mental health helplines have shown great success in improving the mental state of the callers, and are increasingly becoming popular in Israel and worldwide. Unfortunately, our knowledge about how to conduct successful routing of callers to counselling agents has been limited due to lack of large-scale data with labeled outcomes of the interactions. To date, many of these contact centers are overwhelmed by chat requests and operate in a simple first-come-first-serve (FCFS) scheduling policy which, combined, may lead to many callers receiving suboptimal counselling or abandoning the service before being treated. In this work our goal is to improve the efficiency of mental health contact centers by using a novel machine-learning based routing policy.Entities:
Keywords: Call routing; Contact centers; Mental health; Monte Carlo tree search; Online scheduling
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35659290 PMCID: PMC9164346 DOI: 10.1186/s13584-022-00534-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Isr J Health Policy Res ISSN: 2045-4015
Fig. 1Visualisation of our proposed routing approach. The visualization illustrates the mechanism of our approach at a given moment in an MHCC. The people on the top left of the figure () are callers that were not answered yet. The “available agents” box presents agents that are not currently engaged in a conversation. The “current chats” box presents ongoing conversations between agents and callers who have been answered. The prediction models appear at the bottom of the figure. The three models in the left use the data from the waiting callers and the available agents. The last model, predicting remaining time, uses the data from the current conversations: describing the agents and the callers and the current chat
Fig. 2The basic process of chat with ERAN’s service. The figure shows the five main stages of a call using ERAN’s online service. The post-chat survey is optional
Prominent features used in the feedback prediction model. The features are ordered by their correlation with the feedback score. Interestingly, the age of the agent is negatively correlated with the the feedback, meaning that younger agents receive better feedback. Unsurprisingly, the average feedback of the agent in previous calls is correlated with the feedback at the current call. In addition, the average ratio between agent messages and caller messages in previous calls is correlated with feedback, meaning that agents who generally write many messages are likely to receive a better feedback
| Feature | Correlation |
|---|---|
| Agent age | − 0.18 |
| Agent average feedback | 0.176 |
| Agent average message ratio | 0.16 |
| Agent’s number of chats during the shift (before current chat) | − 0.145 |
Performance of various machine learning prediction models for prediction of the feedback. The random forest significantly outperformed all other prediction methods
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| algorithm | Balanced accuracy | F1-score |
| Random forest | 0.758 | 0.743 |
| Decision tree | 0.545 | 0.547 |
| Ada-Boost Classifier | 0.368 | 0.366 |
| Baseline (agent’s average) | 0.281 | 0.302 |
| Logistic Regression | 0.250 | 0.228 |
Prominent features used in the duration prediction model, ordered by their correlation with the duration of the chat. Unsurprisingly, the average duration of the agent and caller in previous calls is correlated with the duration of the current call
| Feature | Correlation |
|---|---|
| Agent average chat duration | 0.178 |
| Caller average chat duration | 0.136 |
| Agent’s number of chats in current shift | 0.10 |
| Agent average message length | 0.09 |
The results of all algorithms in the standard flow setting. both MCTS and CMT outperformed FCFS significantly in quality and the weighted-objective. No other significant differences were found
| Algorithm | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| objective | FCFS | CMT | MCTS |
| Quality | 0.681 | 0.753 | 0.766 |
| Quantity | 0.832 | 0.836 | 0.833 |
| Weighted sum | 0.754 | 0.794 | 0.799 |
The results of all algorithms in the heavy call flow setting. MCTS outperformed the other methods significantly in all objectives
| Algorithm | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| objective | FCFS | CMT | MCTS |
| Quality | 0.687 | 0.820 | 0.851 |
| Quantity | 0.845 | 0.851 | 0.873 |
| Weighted sum | 0.757 | 0.824 | 0.857 |
Fig. 3The result of the weighted-sum objective in both settings. The results show that MCTS, the proposed approach, is significantly superior to all other approaches in the heavy call flow setting. In the standard call flow setting, MCTS and CMT perform similarly and both outperform FCFS, which is the common approach in MHCCs today
The Marginal Results without each of the prediction models, heavy call flow setting. The first column (None) presents the result of MCTS with all components. The rest of the columns present the results of MCTS without one prediction model. We can conclude that all prediction models improved the MCTS results
| Prediction dropped | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| objective | None | Feedback | Duration | Patience | Remaining time |
| Quality | 0.851 | 0.751 | 0.787 | 0.841 | 0.824 |
| Quantity | 0.873 | 0.802 | 0.846 | 0.800 | 0.822 |
| Weighted sum | 0.857 | 0.777 | 0.817 | 0.821 | 0.823 |