ArticleDer Nervenarzt2026
Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a digital advisor in acute psychiatric crises: a feasibility study.
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis exploratory study tested ChatGPT as a digital advisor chatbot for German-speaking individuals in acute psychiatric crises. Additionally, the attitudes of young physicians and psychologists towards the use of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare were investigated.
methodsIn total, 20 resident physicians and psychologists simulated patients in three clinical scenarios (depression, psychosis, adjustment disorder) and interacted with ChatGPT. They evaluated the chatbot's performance regarding overall experience, pleasantness, appropriateness of the responses, realism, and helpfulness. Before and after the intervention, their attitudes towards such a chatbot were assessed. Finally, they assessed 12 statements about the future of LLMs in healthcare and provided open feedback on the chat experience.
resultsChatGPT received predominantly positive ratings (over 8/10 points) for overall experience, helpfulness, pleasantness, and appropriateness, while realism was rated slightly lower at 7/10 points. The appropriateness of the responses varied significantly between the scenarios, with lower ratings for the psychosis scenario. Open feedback confirmed the limited suitability of ChatGPT for psychosis patients. Overall, 70% or more of the participants agreed that LLMs will become increasingly important in everyday life and healthcare, and that an LLM-based chatbot would be a modern tool for low-threshold access to initial psychiatric aid. However, the high number of neutral responses across all 12 items (20-45%) indicates uncertainty regarding the actual benefits and risks.
conclusionThe performance of ChatGPT was rated positively overall by the participants. Significant practical and methodological limitations remain, however, highlighting the need for further research including real patients for a gradual, carefully monitored integration of LLMs into mental healthcare.
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.