ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Expert and Interdisciplinary Analysis of AI-Driven Chatbots for Mental Health Support: Mixed Methods Study.
Article 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 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Possible Role and Function of AI Conversational Agents in Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- The role of large language models in the writing of surgical reviews: fact or fantasy?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Supporting Student Mental Health With the Safespace Generative AI Chatbot: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Between Help and Harm: An Evaluation Study of Mental Health Crisis Handling by Large Language Models.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Cultural Relevance and Acceptability of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Techniques Adapted by AI or a Human Psychologist: Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Current Landscape of Mental Health Conversational Agents From a Trauma-Informed Care Lens: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Exploring Nurses' Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Mental Health Support: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Editorial: Advancing digital mental health for youth.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Are artificial intelligence chatbots safe for suicide risk assessment? A narratively synthesized review of current evidence.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
- Adherence to sleep restriction therapy and its impact on emotional intelligence in high-stress professionals.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- A Prompt Engineering Framework for Large Language Model-Based Mental Health Chatbots: Conceptual Framework.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Performance of mental health chatbot agents in detecting and managing suicidal ideation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predicting Engagement With Conversational Agents in Mental Health Therapy by Examining the Role of Epistemic Trust, Personality, and Fear of Intimacy: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent years have seen an immense surge in the creation and use of chatbots as social and mental health companions. Aiming to provide empathic responses in support of the delivery of personalized support, these tools are often presented as offering immense potential. However, it is also essential that we understand the risks of their deployment, including their potential adverse impacts on the mental health of users, including those most at risk.
objectiveThe study aims to assess the ethical and pragmatic clinical implications of using chatbots that claim to aid mental health. While several studies within human-computer interaction and related fields have examined users' perceptions of such systems, few studies have engaged mental health professionals in critical analysis of their conduct as mental health support tools. This paper comprises, in turn, an effort to assess the ethical and pragmatic clinical implications of using chatbots that claim to aid mental health.
methodsThis study included 8 interdisciplinary mental health professional participants (from psychology and psychotherapy to social care and crisis volunteer workers) in a mixed methods and hands-on analysis of 2 popular mental health-related chatbots' data handling, interface design, and responses. This analysis was carried out through profession-specific tasks with each chatbot, eliciting participants' perceptions through both the Trust in Automation scale and semistructured interviews. Through thematic analysis and a 2-tailed, paired t test, these chatbots' implications for mental health support were thus evaluated.
resultsQualitative analysis revealed emphatic initial impressions among mental health professionals of chatbot responses likely to produce harm, exhibiting a generic mode of care, and risking user dependence and manipulation given the central role of trust in the therapeutic relationship. Trust scores from the Trust in Automation scale, while exhibiting no statistically significant differences between the chatbots (t
conclusionsThrough this work, we contributed insights into the mental health professional perspective on the design of chatbots used for mental health and underscore the necessity of ongoing critical assessment and iterative refinement to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks associated with integrating AI into mental health support.
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.