Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41343763›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Comparing Human and AI Therapists in Behavioral Activation for Depression: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.

Inka Napiwotzki, Julian Laue, Flora Caldarone, Maximilian Idahl, Uwe Hadler, Haithem Amrani, Elisabeth Hildt, Kai G Kahl, Wolfgang Nejdl

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

9 authors.

Inka Napiwotzki *Clinic for Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Department of Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany, 49 511 532 2495.ORCID 0009-0008-4751-2915
Julian Laue *L3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0009-0003-8283-7129
Flora CaldaroneClinic for Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Department of Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany, 49 511 532 2495.ORCID 0000-0003-1312-0450
Maximilian IdahlL3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1866-6436
Uwe HadlerL3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0009-0003-8122-7572
Haithem AmraniL3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0009-0000-1206-4341
Elisabeth HildtDepartment of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1314-5527
Kai G KahlClinic for Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Department of Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany, 49 511 532 2495.ORCID 0000-0002-8530-0605
Wolfgang NejdlL3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3374-2193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly advanced across numerous fields, including mental health care. A shortage of trained therapists and mental health care providers has driven informal use of LLMs for therapeutic support. However, their clinical utility remains poorly defined. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the therapeutic knowledge and single-turn response capabilities of LLMs versus psychotherapists in training in the context of behavioral activation (BA) therapy for depression, and to assess how both groups' performance changed when provided with structured therapeutic training materials. Methods: Six LLMs and 8 human participants completed a questionnaire on depression and BA with 20 multiple-choice items and 10 therapy scenarios, each with 3 open-ended items, that postulated empathic response, use of validation strategies, and theory of mind capabilities. Human participants completed the questionnaire before and after a 5-hour workshop and 5-week period with learning materials. The LLMs received identical training content as context during the second test. All open-ended questions were rated on 5-point scales by 2 experts. Results: At baseline, the LLMs demonstrated higher knowledge scores than human participants (61.0 vs 52.0 out of 100 points) and were rated higher in empathy (U=2.0; P=.005; r=0.917), validation quality (U=2.5; P=.006; r=0.896), anticipation of cognition (U=0.0; P=.002; r=1.000), and anticipation of emotion (U=0.0; P=.002; r=1.000). Following BA training, the LLMs maintained their performance advantage across multiple-choice and open-ended items. Conclusions: The results suggest that LLMs may generate high-quality therapeutic single-turn responses that integrate clinical knowledge with empathetic communication. The findings hint at LLMs' potential as valuable tools in mental health care, although further clinical trials are needed to evaluate their performance in ongoing therapeutic relationships and clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyDepressionPsychotherapistsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesAIartificial intelligencebehavioral activationdigital therapeuticsempathylarge language modelmental health

Identifiers

PMID41343763
PMCPMC12677730

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.