ArticleCureus2023
AI-Powered Mental Health Virtual Assistants' Acceptance: An Empirical Study on Influencing Factors Among Generations X, Y, and Z.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- From promise to practice: artificial intelligence in mental health care in the MENA region.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Examining the relationship between perceived fear of pain and empathic tendencies of nursing students and the affecting factors: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- How mental health status and attitudes toward mental health shape AI Acceptance in psychosocial care: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Trust and Acceptance Challenges in the Adoption of AI Applications in Health Care: Quantitative Survey Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Perceptions of mental health professionals towards artificial intelligence in mental healthcare: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study purposeThis study aims to analyze various influencing factors among generations X (Gen X), Y (Gen Y), and Z (Gen Z) of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered mental health virtual assistants.
methodsA cross-sectional survey design was adopted in this study. The study sample consisted of outpatients diagnosed with various mental health illnesses, such as anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, and behavioral disorders. A survey questionnaire was designed based on the factors (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and behavioural intention) identified from the unified theory of acceptance and use of the technology model. Ethical approval was received from the Ethics Committee at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia.
resultsA total of 506 patients participated in the study, with over 80% having moderate to high experience in using mental health AI assistants. The ANOVA results for performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), facilitating conditions (FC), and behavioral intentions (BI) indicate that there are statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z participants.
conclusionThe findings underscore the significance of considering generational differences in attitudes and perceptions, with Gen Y and Gen Z demonstrating more positive attitudes and stronger intentions to use AI mental health virtual assistants, while Gen X appears to be more cautious.
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.