Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30897957›Full record

ReviewCanadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie2019

Chatbots and Conversational Agents in Mental Health: A Review of the Psychiatric Landscape.

Aditya Nrusimha Vaidyam, Hannah Wisniewski, John David Halamka, Matcheri S Kashavan, John Blake Torous

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06341634 (Surveillance of Suicide Ideation in Adolescents), which is not on this map. Cited by 313 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
313citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06341634 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Surveillance of Suicide Ideation in Adolescents (VISIA)

TypeobservationalSponsorServicio Gallego de SaludRan2024 to 2025Enrolled339ConditionsSuicide, Distress, Emotional, Adolescent Behavior, Healthy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

313 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

253 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Aditya Nrusimha Vaidyam1 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2900-4561
Hannah Wisniewski1 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
John David Halamka1 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Matcheri S Kashavan1 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
John Blake Torous1 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review was to explore the current evidence for conversational agents or chatbots in the field of psychiatry and their role in screening, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses.

methodsA systematic literature search in June 2018 was conducted in PubMed, EmBase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. Studies were included that involved a chatbot in a mental health setting focusing on populations with or at high risk of developing depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar, and substance abuse disorders.

resultsFrom the selected databases, 1466 records were retrieved and 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. Two additional studies were included from reference list screening for a total of 10 included studies. Overall, potential for conversational agents in psychiatric use was reported to be high across all studies. In particular, conversational agents showed potential for benefit in psychoeducation and self-adherence. In addition, satisfaction rating of chatbots was high across all studies, suggesting that they would be an effective and enjoyable tool in psychiatric treatment.

conclusionPreliminary evidence for psychiatric use of chatbots is favourable. However, given the heterogeneity of the reviewed studies, further research with standardized outcomes reporting is required to more thoroughly examine the effectiveness of conversational agents. Regardless, early evidence shows that with the proper approach and research, the mental health field could use conversational agents in psychiatric treatment.

Indexed as

TelemedicineCommunicationDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedHumansMental DisordersPsychotherapyTherapy, Computer-Assistedchatbotconversational agentdepressionembodied conversational agentmedical informaticsmental healthpsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID30897957
PMCPMC6610568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.