Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39717697›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2024

Artificial intelligence as a virtual coach in a cognitive behavioural intervention for perfectionism in young people: A randomised feasibility trial.

Catherine Johnson, Sarah J Egan, Per Carlbring, Roz Shafran, Tracey D Wade

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Catherine JohnsonFlinders University Institute of Mental Health and Wellbeing and Blackbird Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Sarah J EganenAble Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Per CarlbringDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Roz ShafranGreat Ormond Street Institute for Child Health, University College London, United Kingdom.
Tracey D WadeFlinders University Institute of Mental Health and Wellbeing and Blackbird Institute, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We examined the feasibility and outcomes of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a virtual coach in guided self-help (GSH-AI) compared to pure self-help (PSH). Method: Participants ( Results: Engagement was good, only one person in each group did not use any modules; module completion was equivalent across conditions (6.67, Conclusions: Qualitative feedback indicated that AI was initially acceptable as a guide and became even more acceptable after it had been experienced. Fully powered trials are required to determine the impact of AI guidance on outcomes, and whether type of AI platform (customised versus generic) and type of mental health disorder interact with its effects.

Indexed as

AnxietyArtificial intelligenceDisordered eatingGuided self-helpPerfectionismTreatment

Identifiers

PMID39717697
PMCPMC11663973

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.