ArticleJMIR mental health2025
ChatGPT Clinical Use in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Use in Routine Mental Health Practice Among Australian Clinicians: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Can Large Language Models Support University Counseling? Evidence from Perceived Counseling Alliance, Disclosure Willingness, and Risk Recognition.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Digital Mental Health Research Priorities, Revisited for the AI and Large Language Model Era.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Lessons from Smart Cart 2.0: Considerations for Integrating Purchasing Data into Healthy Eating Interventions with AI Approaches.The Journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Review
- Trust-driven healthy engagement with conversational AI for mental health support in young adults: a mixed methods study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Perceived support from AI chatbots and loneliness among higher vocational college students: a short-term three-wave study of social interaction anxiety and perceived social support.Frontiers in psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As mental health challenges continue to rise globally, there is an increasing interest in the use of GPT models, such as ChatGPT, in mental health care. A few months after its release, tens of thousands of users interacted with GPT-based therapy bots, with mental health support identified as the primary use case. ChatGPT offers scalable and immediate support through natural language processing capabilities, but their clinical applicability, safety, and effectiveness remain underexplored. Objective: This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the main clinical applications of ChatGPT in mental health care, along with the existing empirical evidence for its performance. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in 8 electronic databases in April 2025 to identify primary studies. Eligible studies included primary research, reporting on the evaluation of a ChatGPT clinical application implemented for a mental health care-specific purpose. Results: In total, 60 studies were included in this scoping review. The results highlighted that most applications used generic ChatGPT and focused on the detection of mental health problems and counseling and treatment. At the same time, only a minority of studies investigated ChatGPT use in clinical decision facilitation and prognosis tasks. Most of the studies were prompt experiments, in which standardized text inputs-designed to mimic clinical scenarios, patient descriptions, or practitioner queries-are submitted to ChatGPT to evaluate its performance in mental health-related tasks. In terms of performance, ChatGPT shows good accuracy in binary diagnostic classification and differential diagnosis, simulating therapeutic conversation, providing psychoeducation, and conducting specific therapeutic strategies. However, ChatGPT has significant limitations, particularly with more complex clinical presentations and its overly pessimistic prognostic outputs. Nevertheless, overall, when compared to mental health experts or other artificial intelligence models, ChatGPT approximates or surpasses their performance in conducting various clinical tasks. Finally, custom ChatGPT use was associated with better performance, especially in counseling and treatment tasks. Conclusions: While ChatGPT offers promising capabilities for mental health screening, psychoeducation, and structured therapeutic interactions, its current limitations highlight the need for caution in clinical adoption. These limitations also underscore the need for rigorous evaluation frameworks, model refinement, and safety protocols before broader clinical integration. Moreover, the variability in performance across versions, tasks, and diagnostic categories also invites a more nuanced reflection on the conditions under which ChatGPT can be safely and effectively integrated into mental health settings.
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.