ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Public Trust in Artificial Intelligence Applications in Mental Health Care: Topic Modeling Analysis.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Rating Valence in AI Skin Cancer App Acceptance: Eye-Tracking and Questionnaire Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Understanding research priorities in home health care: a topic modeling analysis of the health services literature.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Mental Health Monitoring: A Solution for Digital Behavioral Health Care and Education-An Umbrella Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Parents' Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence-Supported Pediatric Healthcare Services: A Descriptive and Correlational Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Predicting Engagement With Conversational Agents in Mental Health Therapy by Examining the Role of Epistemic Trust, Personality, and Fear of Intimacy: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Mapping the mHealth Nexus: A Semantic Analysis of mHealth Scholars' Research Propensities Following an Interdisciplinary Training Institute.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Users' Perceptions and Trust in AI in Direct-to-Consumer mHealth: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Human centered design of AI-powered Digital Therapeutics for stress prevention: Perspectives from multi-stakeholders' workshops about the SHIVA solution.Internet interventions · 2024Article
- How perceived sustainability influences consumers' clothing preferences.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Mapping global public perspectives on mRNA vaccines and therapeutics.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
- Patient Perspectives on AI for Mental Health Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR mental health · 2024Article
- Analyzing User Reviews of the First Digital Contraceptive: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Public Figure Vaccination Rhetoric and Vaccine Hesitancy: Retrospective Twitter Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2023Article
- The role of AI-driven art therapy in supporting autism, mental health, and emotional well-being: An umbrella review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental disorders (MDs) impose heavy burdens on health care (HC) systems and affect a growing number of people worldwide. The use of mobile health (mHealth) apps empowered by artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being resorted to as a possible solution.
objectiveThis study adopted a topic modeling (TM) approach to investigate the public trust in AI apps in mental health care (MHC) by identifying the dominant topics and themes in user reviews of the 8 most relevant mental health (MH) apps with the largest numbers of reviewers.
methodsWe searched Google Play for the top MH apps with the largest numbers of reviewers, from which we selected the most relevant apps. Subsequently, we extracted data from user reviews posted from January 1, 2020, to April 2, 2022. After cleaning the extracted data using the Python text processing tool spaCy, we ascertained the optimal number of topics, drawing on the coherence scores and used latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) TM to generate the most salient topics and related terms. We then classified the ascertained topics into different theme categories by plotting them onto a 2D plane via multidimensional scaling using the pyLDAvis visualization tool. Finally, we analyzed these topics and themes qualitatively to better understand the status of public trust in AI apps in MHC.
resultsFrom the top 20 MH apps with the largest numbers of reviewers retrieved, we chose the 8 (40%) most relevant apps: (1) Wysa: Anxiety Therapy Chatbot; (2) Youper Therapy; (3) MindDoc: Your Companion; (4) TalkLife for Anxiety, Depression & Stress; (5) 7 Cups: Online Therapy for Mental Health & Anxiety; (6) BetterHelp-Therapy; (7) Sanvello; and (8) InnerHour. These apps provided 14.2% (n=559), 11.0% (n=431), 13.7% (n=538), 8.8% (n=356), 14.1% (n=554), 11.9% (n=468), 9.2% (n=362), and 16.9% (n=663) of the collected 3931 reviews, respectively. The 4 dominant topics were topic 4 (cheering people up; n=1069, 27%), topic 3 (calming people down; n=1029, 26%), topic 2 (helping figure out the inner world; n=963, 25%), and topic 1 (being an alternative or complement to a therapist; n=870, 22%). Based on topic coherence and intertopic distance, topics 3 and 4 were combined into theme 3 (dispelling negative emotions), while topics 2 and 1 remained 2 separate themes: theme 2 (helping figure out the inner world) and theme 1 (being an alternative or complement to a therapist), respectively. These themes and topics, though involving some dissenting voices, reflected an overall high status of trust in AI apps.
conclusionsThis is the first study to investigate the public trust in AI apps in MHC from the perspective of user reviews using the TM technique. The automatic text analysis and complementary manual interpretation of the collected data allowed us to discover the dominant topics hidden in a data set and categorize these topics into different themes to reveal an overall high degree of public trust. The dissenting voices from users, though only a few, can serve as indicators for health providers and app developers to jointly improve these apps, which will ultimately facilitate the treatment of prevalent MDs and alleviate the overburdened HC systems worldwide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.