Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32673216›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Effectiveness and Safety of Using Chatbots to Improve Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Alaa Ali Abd-Alrazaq, Asma Rababeh, Mohannad Alajlani, Bridgette M Bewick, Mowafa Househ

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 170 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 21 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

170 citing papers in PubMed, 21 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. Guideline
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

110 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.

Alaa Ali Abd-AlrazaqCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0001-7695-4626
Asma RababehJordan Health Aid Society International, Amman, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0002-1614-3896
Mohannad AlajlaniInstitute of Digital Healthcare, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5691-7120
Bridgette M BewickLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5752-5623
Mowafa HousehCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0002-3648-6271

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global shortage of mental health workers has prompted the utilization of technological advancements, such as chatbots, to meet the needs of people with mental health conditions. Chatbots are systems that are able to converse and interact with human users using spoken, written, and visual language. While numerous studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of using chatbots in mental health, no reviews have pooled the results of those studies.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health through summarizing and pooling the results of previous studies.

methodsA systematic review was carried out to achieve this objective. The search sources were 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO), the search engine "Google Scholar," and backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Data extracted from studies were synthesized using narrative and statistical methods, as appropriate.

resultsOf 1048 citations retrieved, we identified 12 studies examining the effect of using chatbots on 8 outcomes. Weak evidence demonstrated that chatbots were effective in improving depression, distress, stress, and acrophobia. In contrast, according to similar evidence, there was no statistically significant effect of using chatbots on subjective psychological wellbeing. Results were conflicting regarding the effect of chatbots on the severity of anxiety and positive and negative affect. Only two studies assessed the safety of chatbots and concluded that they are safe in mental health, as no adverse events or harms were reported.

conclusionsChatbots have the potential to improve mental health. However, the evidence in this review was not sufficient to definitely conclude this due to lack of evidence that their effect is clinically important, a lack of studies assessing each outcome, high risk of bias in those studies, and conflicting results for some outcomes. Further studies are required to draw solid conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of chatbots.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019141219; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019141219.

Indexed as

CommunicationHumansMental DisordersMental Healthanxietychatbotsconversational agentsdepressioneffectivenessmental disordersmental healthsafety

Identifiers

PMID32673216
PMCPMC7385637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.