ArticleJMIR mental health2026
Help-Seeking in the Age of AI: Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use and Perceptions of AI-Based Mental Health Support Among US Adults.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Real-World Use of AI Chatbots for Mental Health Support: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A Q Methodological Study on Algorithmic Intimacy, Social Connection, Well-Being, and the Boundaries of Autonomy in University Students' Conversational Artificial Intelligence Experiences.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence anxiety: a narrative review of psychiatric conceptualization and clinical management.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2026Article
- Behavioral intention to use mental health chatbots in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional UTAUT-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnecdotal evidence suggests that an increasing number of people are turning to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools or artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted chatbots to discuss and manage mental health concerns. However, systematic data on the use and perception of such tools remain scarce.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine how young and middle-aged adults in the United States use GenAI and AI-assisted mental health chatbots as mental health resources and assess their preferences for these tools relative to human mental health professionals.
methodsAn anonymous online survey was conducted in October 2025 among US adults in a commercial online panel sample of US adults aged 18-49 years (N=1805). Respondents were asked about the sources they typically turn to when facing mental health concerns, their frequency of using GenAI tools or chatbots for mental health support, and whether the frequency of seeing human mental health professionals had changed since they started using AI tools for mental health support. Attitudes toward AI-based mental health support were assessed and compared with attitudes toward human mental health professionals.
resultsIn this sample, of the 1805 respondents, 638 (35.2%) reported using AI tools at least once a week in a typical week for mental health support, and 99 (5.5%) were classified as "heavy users" who reported regularly spending hours discussing their mental health concerns through AI. However, nearly 60% of respondents reported that they would turn first to family (1078/1805) and friends (1046/1805) when facing mental health concerns. Respondents who screened positive for moderate to severe depressive or anxiety symptoms were more likely to use AI-based mental health support compared to those without these symptoms (adjusted odds ratio 1.71, 95% CI 1.36-2.15) and those with suicidal ideation were more likely to be heavy AI users (adjusted odds ratio 2.42, 95% CI 1.49-3.95). Among those who had ever seen a human mental health professional (n=511), 28.4% (145/511) reported a perceived decline in visit frequency to human mental health professionals since they started using AI tools for the same purpose. Participants expressed more favorable attitudes toward human mental health professionals than toward AI-based tools. However, among heavy AI users, perceptions of AI-based mental health support and human counseling were nearly equivalent in positivity.
conclusionsAI appears to be an important component of the mental health help-seeking landscape among respondents in this sample. Although most respondents still preferred human professionals, a subset reported relying on AI tools for comparable support. Ongoing monitoring and ethical guidelines are needed to ensure that AI technologies expand access to care while being safely and effectively integrated into the broader continuum of mental health services.
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.