ArticleBipolar disorders2026
A Shift in Trust: An Analysis of the Use of AI Chatbots Among People Living With Bipolar Disorder.
Article in Bipolar disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify preliminary insights into the perceived utility and risks of commercially available AI chatbots such as ChatGPT used by individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), namely bipolar disorder, for self-reflection and mental health support.
methodsData were collected via semi-structured interviews from two individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder who independently used ChatGPT for self-reflection and to explore diagnosis, symptom management, and treatment. Both individuals presented to psychiatric services for clinical reasons unrelated to chatbot use. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed.
resultsWe identified a few key themes in the data. First, both participants perceived ChatGPT as a versatile tool, providing educational, emotional, and social support, with use evolving from information seeking to more personal and relational functions. Second, distinct attachment patterns reflected their clinical and psychological profiles: one engaged in reflective, intellectualized conversations, whereas the other developed emotionally intimate interactions. Third, both described therapeutic benefits, including nonjudgmental support and reassurance, sometimes perceived as more accessible or understanding than professional care.
conclusionsThese cases suggest that ChatGPT can shift trust from mental health professionals to AI, fulfilling multiple roles resulting in role blurring and fluid boundaries. Engagement patterns varied with clinical stability, highlighting greater reliance and less distancing in more vulnerable individuals. Although perceived benefits were reported, risks include overreliance, diminished trust in clinicians, and limited awareness of AI limitations, underscoring ethical and clinical considerations for integrating AI in psychiatric care. These cases highlight persistent challenges in psychiatric care that AI alone cannot address.
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.