Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39611131›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

The ethical aspects of integrating sentiment and emotion analysis in chatbots for depression intervention.

Kerstin Denecke, Elia Gabarron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

2 authors.

Kerstin DeneckeAI for Health, Institute Patient-centered Digital Health, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Elia GabarronDepartment of Education, ICT and Learning, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Digital health interventions specifically those realized as chatbots are increasingly available for mental health. They include technologies based on artificial intelligence that assess user's sentiment and emotions for the purpose of responding in an empathetic way, or for treatment purposes, e.g. for analyzing the expressed emotions and suggesting interventions. Methods: In this paper, we study the ethical dimensions of integrating these technologies in chatbots for depression intervention using the digital ethics canvas and the DTx Risk Assessment Canvas. Results: As result, we identified some specific risks associated with the integration of sentiment and emotion analysis methods into these systems related to the difficulty to recognize correctly the expressed sentiment or emotion from statements of individuals with depressive symptoms and the appropriate system reaction including risk detection. Depending on the realization of the sentiment or emotion analysis, which might be dictionary-based or machine-learning based, additional risks occur from biased training data or misinterpretations. Discussion: While technology decisions during system development can be made carefully depending on the use case, other ethical risks cannot be prevented on a technical level, but by carefully integrating such chatbots into the care process allowing for supervision by health professionals. We conclude that a careful reflection is needed when integrating sentiment and emotion analysis into chatbots for depression intervention. Balancing risk factors is key to leveraging technology in mental health in a way that enhances, rather than diminishes, user autonomy and agency.

Indexed as

chatbotconversational agentdepressionemotionemotion analysisethicsmental healthsentiment

Identifiers

PMID39611131
PMCPMC11602467

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.