Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41195352›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2025

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence chatbots on mental health & well-being in college students: a rapid systematic review.

Shahzadhi Nyakhar, Hongwu Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shahzadhi NyakharDepartment of Social & Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,, United States.
Hongwu WangDepartment of Occupational Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mental health disorders among college students have surged in recent years, exacerbated by barriers such as stigma, cost associated with treatment, and limited access to mental health providers. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots have emerged as scalable, stigma-free tools to deliver evidence-based mental health support, yet their efficacy specifically for college populations remains underexplored. Objective: This systematic rapid review evaluates the effectiveness of chatbots in improving mental health outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression) and well-being among college students while identifying key design features and implementation barriers. Methods: Four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, Applied Science & Technology Source, ACM Digital Library) were searched for studies published between 2014 and 2024. Two reviewers independently screened articles using predefined PICO criteria, extracted data and assessed quality via the PEDro scale. Included studies focused on chatbot interventions targeting DSM-5-defined mental health conditions or well-being in college students. Results: Nine studies (n=1,082 participants) were included, with eight reported statistically significant improvements in anxiety (e.g., GAD-7 reductions), depression (e.g., PHQ-9 scores), or well-being. Effective chatbots frequently incorporated cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), daily interactions, and cultural personalization (e.g., 22% depression reduction with Woebot; p<0.05). However, heterogeneity in study quality (PEDro scores: 1-7), high attrition rates (up to 61%), and reliance on self-reported outcomes limited generalizability. Conclusions: Though the use of chatbots for the improvement of mental health and well-being is promising based on the review's results, future research should prioritize rigorous RCTs, standardized outcome measures (e.g., PHQ-9, GAD-7), and strategies to improve attrition.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatbotcollege studentsconversational agentmental health

Identifiers

PMID41195352
PMCPMC12582922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.