ArticleJMIR mental health2024
Regulating AI in Mental Health: Ethics of Care Perspective.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of Chatbots in Mental Health Screening and Assessment: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of the use of artificial intelligence in mental health-based diabetes care: Current applications and future directions.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Pooled it
- The Emerging Roles of AI in Self-Directed Stress Management: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The application of artificial intelligence in the field of mental health: a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Does the Digital Therapeutic Alliance Exist? Integrative Review.JMIR mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Liability and Standard of Care in AI-Driven Psychiatric Practice: European Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Clinicians' Attitudes and Perceptions on the Adoption of AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Towards Human-Centered Digital Health Interventions.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice, Educational Transformation, and Ethical Governance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Digital Humanities in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Care ethics and the transformation of care in an age of artificial intelligence.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence as a Psychological Intervention: Between Illusion and Risk.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- From Tool to Agent: A Semi-Systematic Review of Human-AI Alignment and a Proposed Tiered Healing Ecosystem for Mental Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Reimagining psychiatric care with agentic AI: promise, challenges, and a roadmap forward.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- AI in geriatric psychiatry: precision meets human experience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- The unintended negative consequences of artificial intelligence use for psychologists.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article contends that the responsible artificial intelligence (AI) approach-which is the dominant ethics approach ruling most regulatory and ethical guidance-falls short because it overlooks the impact of AI on human relationships. Focusing only on responsible AI principles reinforces a narrow concept of accountability and responsibility of companies developing AI. This article proposes that applying the ethics of care approach to AI regulation can offer a more comprehensive regulatory and ethical framework that addresses AI's impact on human relationships. This dual approach is essential for the effective regulation of AI in the domain of mental health care. The article delves into the emergence of the new "therapeutic" area facilitated by AI-based bots, which operate without a therapist. The article highlights the difficulties involved, mainly the absence of a defined duty of care toward users, and shows how implementing ethics of care can establish clear responsibilities for developers. It also sheds light on the potential for emotional manipulation and the risks involved. In conclusion, the article proposes a series of considerations grounded in the ethics of care for the developmental process of AI-powered therapeutic tools.
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.