ArticleJournal of clinical psychology2025
Psychological First Aid by AI: Proof-of-Concept and Comparative Performance of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini in Different Disaster Scenarios.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the performance and proof-of-concept of psychological first aid (PFA) provided by two AI chatbots, ChatGPT-4 and Gemini.
methodsA mixed-method cross-sectional analysis was conducted using validated PFA scenarios from the Institute for Disaster Mental Health. Five scenarios representing different disaster contexts were selected. Data were collected by prompting both chatbots to perform PFA based on these scenarios. Quantitative performance was assessed using the PFA principles of Look, Listen, and Link, with scores assigned using IFRC's PFA scoring template. Qualitative analysis involved content analysis for AI hallucination, coding responses, and thematic analysis to identify key subthemes and themes.
resultsChatGPT-4 outperformed Gemini, achieving an overall score of 90% (CI: 86%-93%) compared to Gemini's 73% (CI: 67%-79%), a statistically significant difference (p = 0.01). In the Look domain, ChatGPT-4 scored higher (p = 0.02), while both performed equally in the Listen and Link domain. The content analysis of AI hallucinations reveals that ChatGPT-4 has a relative frequency of 18.4% (CI: 12%-25%), while Gemini exhibits a relative frequency of 50.0% (CI: 26.6%-71.3%), (p < 0.01). Five themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: Look, Listen, Link, Professionalism, Mental Health, and Psychosocial Support.
conclusionChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior performance in providing PFA compared to Gemini. While AI chatbots show potential as supportive tools for PFA providers, concerns regarding AI hallucinations highlight the need for cautious implementation. Further research is necessary to enhance the reliability and safety of AI-assisted PFA, particularly by eliminating hallucinations, and to integrate the current advances in voice-based chatbot functionality.
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.