SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots as Therapeutic Tools: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Role in Reducing Mental Health Issues.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Generative AI in Youth Mental Health Apps: Rapid Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Pooled it
- Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots as Therapeutic Tools: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Role in Reducing Mental Health Issues.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of a Conversational AI Agent for Psychiatric Symptoms and Digital Therapeutic Alliance: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- How AI companions could deepen social inequality.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Perceived Support Is Not Psychological Change: Reframing AI Chatbots in Mental Health Care.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Personalized Intelligent Chatbot Based on AI-Generated Content Assists Memoir Writing for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Spiritual Care: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Generative AI Use and Life Satisfaction and the Mediating Role of AI Literacy Among Hong Kong Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Design, Development, and Validation of a Chatbot to Support Health Care Professionals Experiencing Workplace Aggression: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Exploring Nurses' Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Mental Health Support: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Surgical Oncology: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Mass Media Narratives of Psychiatric Adverse Events Associated With Generative AI Chatbots: Rapid Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- AI-Integrated Counseling Administration Quality and Organizational Support as Drivers of Early Risk Detection in Indonesian Schools.F1000Research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in psychiatry: clinical applications, limitations, and ethical challenges.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- From promise to practice: artificial intelligence in mental health care in the MENA region.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Shedding light on mental health problems and potential solutions for young women: results from an anonymous asynchronous online focus group.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has driven the rapid development of AI mental health chatbots. Most current reviews investigated the effectiveness of rule-based or retrieval-based chatbots. To date, there is no comprehensive review that systematically synthesizes the effect of generative AI (GenAI) chatbot's impact on mental health. Objective: This review aims to (1) narratively synthesize existing GenAI mental health chatbots' technical features, treatment and research designs, and sample characteristics through a systematic review of quantitative studies and (2) quantify the effectiveness and key moderators of these rigorously designed trials on GenAI mental health chatbots through a meta-analysis of only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: The search strategy includes 11 database searching, backward citation tracking, and a manual ad hoc search to update literature. This thorough literature search, completed in March 2025, returned 5555 records for screening. The systematic review included studies that (1) used generative or hybrid (rule/retrieval-based and generative) AI-based chatbots to deliver interventions and (2) quantitatively measured mental health-related outcomes. The meta-analysis has additional inclusion criteria: (1) studies must be RCTs, (2) must measure negative mental health issues, (3) the comparison group must not have chatbot features, and (4) must provide enough statistics for effect size calculation. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and registered the protocol retrospectively during the revision process (September 18, 2025). In meta-regression, data were synthesized in R software using a random-effects model. Results: The narrative synthesis of 26 studies revealed that (1) GenAI chatbot interventions mostly took place in non-WEIRD countries (non-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) and (2) there is a lack of studies focusing on young children and older adults. The meta-analysis of 14 RCTs showed a statistically significant effect (effect size [ES]=0.30, P=.047, N=6314, 95% CI 0.004, 0.59, 95% prediction interval [PI] -0.85, 1.67), which means that GenAI chatbots are, on average, effective in reducing negative mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, among others. We found that social-oriented chatbots (ie, those that mainly provide social interactions) are more effective than task-oriented programs (ie, those that assist with specific tasks). Risk of bias in the nonrandomized studies and RCTs was assessed using Cochrane ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) and RoB2 (revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials), respectively, indicating a moderate amount of risk. One main limitation of this meta-analysis is the small number of studies (n=14) included. Conclusions: By identifying research gaps, we suggest that future researchers investigate user groups such as adolescents and older adults, outcomes other than depression and anxiety, cultural adaptations in non-WEIRD countries, ways to streamline chatbots in usual care practices, and explore applications in diverse settings. More importantly, we cannot ignore GenAI chatbots' risks while acknowledging their promise. This review also emphasized several ethical implications.
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.