ArticleBMC medical education2025
Psychology student and mental health practitioner experiences of and perspectives on Client101, a virtual client chatbot training tool.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundLimited practice opportunities and recent developments in natural language processing have spurred the development of systems housing virtual client chatbots to be used as psychotherapy training tools. Initial studies convey the potential of virtual client chatbots to support the mental health practitioner in developing key skills in the delivery of therapy. These studies are limited in that they often do not include mental health professionals or students in the testing of their virtual client chatbots, nor focus on a particular learning context in their evaluation of the training tool. This study addresses these shortcomings by exploring mental health professionals’ and psychology students’ experiences of and perspectives on Client101, a virtual client chatbot training tool, in relation to specific training contexts.
methodsParticipants (Masters psychology students who are in training to become qualified therapists, counsellors and youth peer workers) interacted with the virtual client chatbots housed in the Client101 platform and then completed questionnaires and interviews. This mixed-methods study uses a convergent parallel design: questionnaires and interviews were analysed separately and then integrated to produce the overall results. Questionnaires were analysed via descriptive statistics and participant interviews were reflexively thematically analysed. The questionnaire responses supplement the qualitative data.
resultsParticipants reported they were surprised how human-like the virtual client chatbots were but also reported limitations to their realism. These limitations included the perception that the chatbots were too compliant, not complex enough and did not evolve. Participants considered that Client101 could supplement their training context and provide a safe place for the practitioner to build confidence in key skills prior to interacting with real clients. Participants provided recommendations for how Client101 should be implemented.
conclusionsThis study revealed that there is a need to supplement the existing psychology and mental health training context with more opportunities to build confidence in key skills prior to interacting with real clients. Client101 could enhance the learning context through providing a safe, accessible, independent and effective means of practice. However, the virtual client chatbots should convey greater resistance and complexity to be more effective learning tools.
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.