Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41921114›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Optimization of University Counseling Consent Forms With Large Language Models: Multidimensional Comparative Evaluation.

Jianchen Luo, Jing Ma, Danni Zhan, Yuhong Zhou, Jiayu Li, Lan Zhang, Wentao Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Jianchen Luo *Department of Liver Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Alley, Wuhou District, Chengdu, 610041, China, 86 18980601895.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7233-7669
Jing Ma *Mental Health Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7863-6207
Danni ZhanDepartment of Vocational Education, The Open University of Mianyang, Mianyang, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2552-708X
Yuhong ZhouPsychological Research and Counseling Center, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7565-7854
Jiayu LiDepartment of Psychology, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8693-5525
Lan ZhangWest China School of Clinical Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9561-5486
Wentao WangDepartment of Liver Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Alley, Wuhou District, Chengdu, 610041, China, 86 18980601895.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6966-2665

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mental health problems among university students are a growing global concern, yet limited counseling resources and inadequate understanding of counseling procedures often delay timely help-seeking. Informed consent forms (ICFs) are essential for safeguarding autonomy and clarifying counseling procedures, but many universities' counseling ICFs are incomplete, ambiguous, or overly technical. Large language models (LLMs) may offer scalable assistance for improving clarity and accessibility. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether LLM-based rewriting could improve the structure, readability, content quality, and comprehensibility of university counseling ICFs, and compared 2 advanced models (ChatGPT [GPT-5] and Grok-4). Methods: We conducted a comparative evaluation of counseling ICFs collected from 33 Chinese universities (original texts) and generated 2 rewritten versions for each ICF using ChatGPT (GPT-5) and Grok-4. A multidimensional framework assessed (1) textual structure and readability, (2) expert-rated content quality from a counselor perspective, and (3) volunteer-rated reading comprehension from a client perspective. Comparisons between original and rewritten texts were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests, with linear mixed-effects models used to validate results while accounting for rater variability. Results: Compared with the originals, both LLM-rewritten ICFs showed significant improvements across all evaluated dimensions. The mean Lee-Yang Readability Index decreased from 28.68 (SD 5.69) to 22.39 (SD 2.13) with ChatGPT (GPT-5) and 24.37 (SD 2.32) with Grok-4 (both P<.001), and mean tone friendliness increased from 2.57 (SD 0.29) to 2.67 (SD 0.12) and 2.67 (SD 0.13), respectively. The mean expert-rated content quality improved from 45.33 (SD 8.74) to 52.54 (SD 7.92) and 55.49 (SD 7.81) (P<.001), driven mainly by higher completeness and specificity of key information. The mean volunteer-rated reading comprehension scores increased from 19.02 (SD 1.32) to 22.33 (SD 0.81) and 22.05 (SD 0.90) (P<.001), indicating improved clarity, readability, and acceptability. Across structural features, Grok-4 tended to produce longer rewritten forms than the originals, highlighting a potential trade-off between added informational content and document length. Conclusions: In this comparative evaluation of 33 Chinese university counseling ICFs, LLM-based rewriting was associated with improved readability, expert-rated content quality, and volunteer-rated comprehension relative to original forms. These findings suggest that LLMs can support the optimization of counseling documentation; however, implementation should consider practical constraints (eg, document length) and retain human oversight.

Indexed as

Consent FormsCounselingChinaComprehensionHumansLarge Language ModelsUniversitieshigher educationinformed consent formslarge language modelsmental health accessibilityuniversity counseling

Identifiers

PMID41921114
PMCPMC13043017

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.