Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41442647›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2025

ChatGPT Clinical Use in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence.

Raluca Balan, Thomas P Gumpel

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Raluca BalanSeymour Fox School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 94554 11, Israel, 972 0545443079.ORCID 0009-0001-6894-6308
Thomas P GumpelSeymour Fox School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 94554 11, Israel, 972 0545443079.ORCID 0000-0003-1483-5749

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansartificial intelligenceChatGPTclinical decision makingcounselingdiagnosticevaluationmental healthPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAprognosis

Identifiers

PMID41442647
PMCPMC12735656

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.