ArticleInternet interventions2024
Revealing the source: How awareness alters perceptions of AI and human-generated mental health responses.
Article in Internet interventions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Emerging Roles of AI in Self-Directed Stress Management: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring Student Perceptions of Generative AI Therapists and Their Benefits and Challenges in Schools.International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie · 2026Article
- "I Don't Trust AI": A Generic Qualitative Analysis of College-Aged Mental Health Clients' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Used in Mental Health Counseling.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring Students' Perceptions and Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Mental Health: A Preliminary Study in Higher Education in Qatar.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The impact of generative AI on social media: an experimental study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Commentary: Trustworthy and ethical AI in digital mental healthcare - wishful thinking or tangible goal?Internet interventions · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence vs. human expert: Licensed mental health clinicians' blinded evaluation of AI-generated and expert psychological advice on quality, empathy, and perceived authorship.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- Single online self-compassion writing intervention reduces anxiety: With the feedback of ChatGPT.Internet interventions · 2025Review
- The Efficacy of Conversational AI in Rectifying the Theory-of-Mind and Autonomy Biases: Comparative Analysis.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Trust in large language model-based solutions in healthcare among people with and without diabetes: a cross-sectional survey from the Health in Central Denmark cohort.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Human centered design of AI-powered Digital Therapeutics for stress prevention: Perspectives from multi-stakeholders' workshops about the SHIVA solution.Internet interventions · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence as a virtual coach in a cognitive behavioural intervention for perfectionism in young people: A randomised feasibility trial.Internet interventions · 2024Article
- Public Perception on Artificial Intelligence-Driven Mental Health Interventions: Survey Research.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In mental health care, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into internet interventions could significantly improve scalability and accessibility, provided that AI is perceived as being as effective as human professionals. This longitudinal study investigates the comparative perceptions of ChatGPT and human mental health support professionals across three dimensions: authenticity, professionalism, and practicality. Initially, 140 participants evaluated responses from both sources without knowing their origin, revealing that AI-generated responses were rated significantly higher across all dimensions. Six months later, the same cohort (n = 111) reassessed these messages with the source of each response disclosed, aiming to understand the impact of source transparency on perceptions and trust towards AI. The results indicate a shift in perception towards human responses, only in terms of authenticity (Cohen's d = 0.45) and reveal a significant correlation between trust in AI and its practicality rating (r = 0.25), but not with authenticity or professionalism. A comparative analysis between blind and informed evaluations revealed a significant shift in favour of human response ratings (Cohen's d = 0.42-0.57), while AI response ratings experienced minimal variation. These findings highlight the nuanced acceptance and role of AI in mental health support, emphasizing that the disclosure of the response source significantly shapes perceptions and trust in AI-generated assistance.
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.