ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Feasibility and user evaluation of HopeBot: An LLM-powered conversational chatbot for depression screening.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06801925 (Evaluating the Effectiveness and Acceptability of a GPT-4o and RAG-Based Voice Chatbot for Depression Screening Using PHQ-9), which is not on this 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.
Evaluating the Effectiveness and Acceptability of a GPT-4o and RAG-Based Voice Chatbot for Depression Screening Using PHQ-9
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinician-administered Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) interviews allow clarification of ambiguous responses but are resource-intensive and difficult to scale for routine use. Self-administered versions are widely adopted for depression screening yet offer little opportunity for interaction or clarification, which may limit engagement and scoring accuracy. We developed HopeBot, a conversational chatbot powered by a large language model (LLM) that delivers the PHQ-9 via text or voice, providing real-time clarification and safety guidance through a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) layer drawing on validated psychological and helpline resources. The system aims to extend access to structured screening rather than replace clinician judgment. In a within-subject feasibility study, 132 adults from two countries completed both self-administered and chatbot-assisted PHQ-9 assessments followed by a 25-item evaluation survey. Chatbot and self-report scores showed high concordance (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92; median absolute difference = 1 point), indicating faithful replication of scoring. Of these participants, 75 completed a comparative feedback module (most with identical scores were not prompted for comparison); 71% (n = 53) reported greater confidence in chatbot-assisted scores, citing clearer structure, interpretive guidance, and a supportive tone. Mean usability ratings (0-10) were 8.4 for comfort, 7.7 for voice clarity, 7.6 for handling sensitive topics, and 7.4 for recommendation helpfulness; the latter varied significantly by employment status and prior experience with mental-health services. The self-administered PHQ-9 served as a pragmatic comparator reflecting real-world digital screening, allowing evaluation of whether the chatbot could faithfully reproduce the questionnaire's structure and scoring accuracy rather than diagnostic validity. These findings indicate that an LLM-powered conversational agent with RAG-based grounding can feasibly and acceptably administer the PHQ-9 with strong score concordance relative to self-report, suggesting potential as a scalable adjunct for early, low-burden depression screening. Further validation against clinician-administered assessments in real-world workflows is warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT06801925.
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.