Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41229924›Full record

ArticleDigital health

AI chatbots for promoting healthy habits: Legal, ethical, and societal considerations.

Hannah van Kolfschooten, João Gonçalves, Nic Orchard, Caroline Figueroa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Hannah van KolfschootenAmsterdam Law School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3342-0285
João GonçalvesDepartment of Media & Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8948-0455
Nic OrchardFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Caroline FigueroaFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used to promote health and encourage individuals to adopt healthier behaviors. Chatbots driven by generative AI (genAI) simulate human interactions through text or voice to generate personalized content with guidance on topics such as smoking cessation, nutrition, managing stress, and sleep improvement. The use of AI chatbots for health promotion and wellness has been growing since 2023. While empirical evidence suggests their effectiveness in supporting behavioral change and mental health, the legal, ethical, and societal implications remains largely unexplored. This article presents a qualitative case study of S.A.R.A.H. (Smart AI Resource Assistant for Health), a genAI chatbot developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), analyzed against the six ethical principles outlined in the WHO's 2021 Guidance on Ethics and Governance of AI for Health. We also gathered exploratory insights from adolescent focus groups. These findings are descriptive and not based on formal thematic analysis. Drawing on this analysis, we identify key gaps between high-level ethical principles and practice and offer policy recommendations to guide responsible use of AI chatbots for health promotion.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencechatbotspreventionpublic healthworld health organization

Identifiers

PMID41229924
PMCPMC12602910

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.