ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025
Perception of AI Use in Youth Mental Health Services: Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Young people's perceptions and recommendations for conversational generative artificial intelligence in youth mental health.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring Students' Perceptions and Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Mental Health: A Preliminary Study in Higher Education in Qatar.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Chatbots on Adolescent Mental Health Development: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
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
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has made significant advancements in health care. A key application of using artificial intelligence for health (AIH) is the use of AI-powered chatbots; however, empirical evidence on their effectiveness and feasibility remains limited. Objective: This study explored interest group perceptions of integrating AIH in youth mental health services, focusing on its potential benefits, challenges, usefulness, and regulatory implications. Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured in-depth interviews with 23 mobile health stakeholders, including youth users, service providers, and nonclinical staff from an integrated youths' service network. We used an inductive approach and thematic analysis to identify and summarize common themes and subthemes. Results: Participants identified AIH's potential to support education, navigation, and administrative tasks in health care, as well as to create safe spaces and mitigate health resource burdens. However, they expressed concerns about the lack of human elements, such as empathy and clinical judgment. Key challenges included privacy issues, unknown risks from rapid technological advancements, and insufficient crisis management for sensitive mental health cases. Participants viewed AIH's ability to mimic human behavior as a critical quality standard and emphasized the need for a robust evaluation framework combining objective metrics with subjective insights. Conclusions: While AIH has the potential to improve health care access and experience, it cannot address all mental health challenges and may exacerbate existing issues. While AIH could complement less-complex services, it could not replace the therapeutic value of human interaction at this time. Co-design with end users is critical for successful AI integration. Robust evaluation frameworks and an iterative approach to build a learning health system are essential to refine AIH and ensure it aligns with real-world evolving needs.
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.