ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Safety Mechanisms and Risk Mitigation in Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative AI (GenAI) mental health chatbots are increasingly being developed to help address persistent barriers to mental healthcare. Unlike earlier rule-based and retrieval-based systems, GenAI chatbots generate open-ended outputs that can be inaccurate and unsafe. Documented harms from general-purpose GenAI chatbots have highlighted the need for purpose-built interventions with dedicated safeguards, yet how safety is implemented in such interventions remains poorly understood.
methodsThis scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, with a prospectively registered and peer-reviewed protocol. A systematic search of seven academic databases and search engines including MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar and Consensus was conducted in July 2025. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data. Safety mechanisms and risk mitigation strategies were narratively synthesised across three pre-specified domains: technical safeguards, pre-deployment safety considerations, and delivery-phase risk mitigation strategies.
resultsTwenty-one studies across 11 countries were included. Most interventions incorporated at least one technical safety mechanism, most commonly fine-tuning and prompt engineering. A smaller subset implemented layered safety architectures combining retrieval systems, content filters or risk classifiers, and rule-based algorithms. Pre-deployment safeguards included clinical expert and user co-design approaches, research ethics procedures, and data privacy measures. During intervention delivery, detailed onboarding with role clarification was common, but human oversight was limited. Crisis referral protocols varied in rigour but were mostly underdeveloped, and systematic adverse event monitoring was sparse. Documented safety failures included missed suicidal ideation and provision of inaccurate clinical information.
conclusionsGenAI chatbot interventions require a robust sociotechnical approach that integrates technical safeguards with user co-design, procedural controls, and human oversight. Future research is needed to evaluate efficacy, improve safeguards and standardise safety outcome measurement. Regulatory oversight proportional to the risks these systems carry is required to enable integration into stepped or blended mental healthcare.
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.