Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053735›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Current Landscape and Future Directions for Mental Health Conversational Agents for Youth: Scoping Review.

Jinkyung Katie Park, Vivek K Singh, Pamela Wisniewski

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Digital Psychiatry with Chatbot: Recent Advances and Limitations.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Review
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

3 authors.

Jinkyung Katie ParkHuman-Centered Computing Division, School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0804-832X
Vivek K SinghDepartment of Library and Information, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8194-2336
Pamela WisniewskiDepartment of Computer Science, School of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6223-1029

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConversational agents (CAs; chatbots) are systems with the ability to interact with users using natural human dialogue. They are increasingly used to support interactive knowledge discovery of sensitive topics such as mental health topics. While much of the research on CAs for mental health has focused on adult populations, the insights from such research may not apply to CAs for youth.

objectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the state-of-the-art research on mental health CAs for youth.

methodsFollowing PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we identified 39 peer-reviewed studies specific to mental health CAs designed for youth across 4 databases, including ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to evaluate the characteristics of research on mental health CAs designed for youth, the design and computational considerations of mental health CAs for youth, and the evaluation outcomes reported in the research on mental health CAs for youth.

resultsWe found that many mental health CAs (11/39, 28%) were designed as older peers to provide therapeutic or educational content to promote youth mental well-being. All CAs were designed based on expert knowledge, with a few that incorporated inputs from youth. The technical maturity of CAs was in its infancy, focusing on building prototypes with rule-based models to deliver prewritten content, with limited safety features to respond to imminent risk. Research findings suggest that while youth appreciate the 24/7 availability of friendly or empathetic conversation on sensitive topics with CAs, they found the content provided by CAs to be limited. Finally, we found that most (35/39, 90%) of the reviewed studies did not address the ethical aspects of mental health CAs, while youth were concerned about the privacy and confidentiality of their sensitive conversation data.

conclusionsOur study highlights the need for researchers to continue to work together to align evidence-based research on mental health CAs for youth with lessons learned on how to best deliver these technologies to youth. Our review brings to light mental health CAs needing further development and evaluation. The new trend of large language model-based CAs can make such technologies more feasible. However, the privacy and safety of the systems should be prioritized. Although preliminary evidence shows positive trends in mental health CAs, long-term evaluative research with larger sample sizes and robust research designs is needed to validate their efficacy. More importantly, collaboration between youth and clinical experts is essential from the early design stages through to the final evaluation to develop safe, effective, and youth-centered mental health chatbots. Finally, best practices for risk mitigation and ethical development of CAs with and for youth are needed to promote their mental well-being.

Indexed as

CommunicationMental HealthAdolescentHumansadolescentartificial intelligencechatbotconversational agentmental healthPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysesscoping reviewyouth

Identifiers

PMID40053735
PMCPMC11909484

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.