ArticleJMIR mental health2025
The Digital Therapeutic Alliance With Mental Health Chatbots: Diary Study and Thematic Analysis.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Real-World Use of AI Chatbots for Mental Health Support: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on Conversational Mental Health Chatbots: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Can Large Language Models Support University Counseling? Evidence from Perceived Counseling Alliance, Disclosure Willingness, and Risk Recognition.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Multimodal Conversational Chatbot for Emotional Support and Daily Assistance in Older Adults: Design, Development and Pilot Usability Evaluation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trust-driven healthy engagement with conversational AI for mental health support in young adults: a mixed methods study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Large language models for post-discharge follow-up in erectile dysfunction care: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Eye-Tracked Visual Attention to Anthropomorphic Appearance and Empathic Responses in AI Medical Conversational Agents: Dissociating Trust Gains from Attentional Synergy.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Facilitators and Barriers of Using an Artificial Intelligence Agent in Chronic Disease Management: A Normalization Process Theory-Guided Qualitative Study of Older Patients with COPD.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of safety guardrails on large language models using irritability metrics.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundMental health chatbots are increasingly used to address the global mental health treatment gap by offering scalable, accessible, and anonymous support. While prior research suggests that users may develop relationships with these chatbots, the mechanisms and individual differences underlying such relational experiences remain underexplored. As the concept of the digital therapeutic alliance (DTA) gains traction, a deeper understanding of subjective relationship-building processes is essential to inform the design of more effective digital mental health interventions.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate how people subjectively perceive and develop relationships with mental health chatbots over time. We sought to identify key experiential dimensions and interactional dynamics that facilitate or hinder the formation of such bonds, contributing to the evolving conceptualization of the DTA.
methodsWe conducted a 4-week short-term longitudinal diary study with 26 adult participants who interacted with two widely available mental health chatbots (Woebot and Wysa). Data were collected through weekly surveys, conversation screenshots, and semistructured interviews. A reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify recurring themes and interpret the emotional, communicative, and contextual factors shaping participants' relational experiences with the chatbots.
resultsA total of 18 participants reported forming a bond or light bond with at least one chatbot. Interview narratives revealed three relational categories: Bond (clear emotional connection), Light Bond (tentative or partial connection), and No Bond (absence of connection). Both participants with lower and higher psychological well-being (based on the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index scores) reported forming such relationships, suggesting that bonding capacity is not strictly dependent on mental health status. Thematic analysis identified six key themes that explain why people did or did not form bonds: the desire to lead or be led in conversation, alignment between preferred style of self-expression and accepted inputs, expectations for caring and nurturing from the chatbot, perceived effectiveness of the chatbot's advice and proposed activities, appreciation for colloquial communication, and valuing a private and nonjudgmental conversation.
conclusionsOur findings provide empirical insight into how people interpret and engage in relational processes with mental health chatbots, advancing the theoretical foundation of the DTA. Rather than favoring one design style, our analysis highlights the importance of alignment between preferences and the chatbot's interaction style and conversational role. Participants' initial expectations around empathy and trust also shaped how relationships developed. Drawing on these insights, we suggest that chatbots may better support early therapeutic relationships by blending emotional support with relevant guidance, allowing flexible input methods, and maintaining continuity through context-aware responses. These features may enhance their therapeutic value and foster stronger relationships.
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.