ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Practitioner Perspectives on the Uses of Generative AI Chatbots in Mental Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Clinicians' Attitudes and Perceptions on the Adoption of AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Risks of Generative AI Mental-Health Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Regulatory Framework.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have the potential to improve mental health care for practitioners and clients. Evidence demonstrates that AI chatbots can assist with tasks such as documentation, research, counseling, and therapeutic exercises. However, research examining practitioners' perspectives is limited. Objective: This mixed-methods study investigates: (1) practitioners' perspectives on different uses of generative AI chatbots; (2) their likelihood of recommending chatbots to clients; and (3) whether recommendation likelihood increases after viewing a demonstration. Methods: Participants were 23 mental health practitioners, including 17 females and 6 males, with a mean age of 39.39 (SD 16.20) years. In 45-minute interviews, participants selected their 3 most helpful uses of chatbots from 11 options and rated their likelihood of recommending chatbots to clients on a Likert scale before and after an 11-minute chatbot demonstration. Results: Binomial tests found that Generating case notes was selected at greater-than-chance levels ( 15/23, 65%; P=.001), while Support with session planning (P=.86) and Identifying and suggesting literature (P=.10) were not. Although 55% (12/23) were likely to recommend chatbots to clients, a binomial test found no significant difference from the 50% threshold (P=.74). A paired samples t test found that recommendation likelihood increased significantly (19/23, 83%; P=.002) from predemonstration to postdemonstration. Conclusions: Findings suggest practitioners favor administrative uses of generative AI and are more likely to recommend chatbots to clients after exposure. This study highlights a need for practitioner education and guidelines to support safe and effective AI integration in mental health care.
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.