Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40063074›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025

Generative AI-Enabled Therapy Support Tool for Improved Clinical Outcomes and Patient Engagement in Group Therapy: Real-World Observational Study.

Johanna Habicht, Larisa-Maria Dina, Jessica McFadyen, Mona Stylianou, Ross Harper, Tobias U Hauser, Max Rollwage

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Johanna Habicht *Limbic Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5043-7129
Larisa-Maria Dina *Limbic Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2530-2983
Jessica McFadyenLimbic Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1415-2286
Mona StylianouEveryturn Mental Health, Gosforth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0008-2268-5019
Ross HarperLimbic Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2403-2088
Tobias U HauserLimbic Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7997-8137
Max RollwageLimbic Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4181-3983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a highly effective treatment for depression and anxiety disorders. Nonetheless, a substantial proportion of patients do not respond to treatment. The lack of engagement with therapeutic materials and exercises between sessions, a necessary component of CBT, is a key determinant of unsuccessful treatment.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to test whether the deployment of a generative artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled therapy support tool, which helps patients to engage with therapeutic materials and exercises in between sessions, leads to improved treatment success and patient treatment adherence compared with the standard delivery of CBT exercises through static workbooks.

methodsWe conducted a real-world observational study of 244 patients receiving group-based CBT in 5 of the United Kingdom's National Health Service Talking Therapies services, comparing 150 (61.5%) patients who used the AI-enabled therapy support tool to 94 (38.5%) patients who used the standard delivery of CBT exercises. The groups were equivalent with respect to the content of the CBT materials and the human-led therapy sessions; however, the intervention group received support from the AI-enabled therapy support tool in conducting CBT exercises.

resultsPatients using the AI-enabled therapy support tool exhibited greater attendance at therapy sessions and fewer dropouts from treatment. Furthermore, these patients demonstrated higher reliable improvement, recovery, and reliable recovery rates when compared to the control group, which was related to the degree of use of the AI-enabled therapy support tool. Moreover, we found that engagement with AI-supported CBT interventions, relative to psychoeducational materials, predicted better treatment adherence and treatment success, highlighting the role of personalization in the intervention's effectiveness. To investigate the mechanisms of these effects further, we conducted a separate qualitative experiment in a nonclinical sample of users (n=113). Results indicated that users perceived the AI-enabled therapy support tool as most useful for discussing their problems to gain awareness and clarity of their situation as well as learning how to apply coping skills and CBT techniques in their daily lives.

conclusionsOur results show that an AI-enabled, personalized therapy support tool in combination with human-led group therapy is a promising avenue to improve the efficacy of and adherence to mental health care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCognitive Behavioral TherapyPatient ParticipationPsychotherapy, GroupAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdomanxiety disorderartificial intelligenceCBTchatbotclinicalcognitive behavioral therapycontrol groupconversational agentdepressionexercisemedicationmental healthNational Health ServiceNHS Talking Therapiesobservational studypatient adherencepatient engagementtherapisttherapy support tooltreatment

Identifiers

PMID40063074
PMCPMC11933774

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.