ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Exploring public perceptions of artificial intelligence in bereavement support: a qualitative study of griefbots.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence technologies designed to simulate deceased loved ones, often referred to as griefbots, are emerging as a novel form of bereavement support. Although such technologies may offer emotional comfort and a sense of continued connection with the deceased, they also raise complex psychological, ethical, and societal concerns. This study aimed to explore public perceptions of griefbots in bereavement support, with particular attention to perceived benefits, psychological and social risks, ethical concerns, and expectations for responsible governance and institutional integration. Methods: A descriptive phenomenological approach was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants from Guangdong Province, China, and data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study received ethics approval from Guangzhou Medical University. Results: Four themes were identified. Participants perceived griefbots as offering psychosocial benefits, particularly emotional comfort, continued connection with the deceased, and a symbolic means of addressing unresolved loss and regret. At the same time, they expressed concerns about disruption of natural grieving processes, inauthenticity, dependency, psychological harm, social inequality, stigma, and ethical tensions related to data use and posthumous representation. Participants also articulated expectations regarding technology design, use boundaries, governance, and legal safeguards. Overall, perceived acceptability was not organized around simple approval or rejection, but was described as conditional, shaped by context, individual readiness, and perceived vulnerability. Conclusion: Griefbots were perceived as neither inherently beneficial nor inherently harmful. Instead, their comfort and risk were understood to arise from the same capacity to simulate the continued presence of the deceased. Public perceptions of AI in bereavement support were therefore best understood as conditional and negotiated, underscoring the need for careful governance and responsible integration in bereavement-related contexts.
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.