ArticleJMIR AI2026
Navigating AI in Mental Health Care and Psychotherapy: Proposing the GUIDE Framework.
Article in JMIR AI, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI is already in the mental health consulting room, whether clinicians invite it or not. OpenAI reports more than 800 million regular users of ChatGPT and more than 40 million people turning to the platform daily for health questions, yet the evidence remains limited on the clinical efficacy of large language model-based mental health chatbots. Professional guidance and regulation remain fragmented. Clinicians are therefore practicing in a gap between a patient reality that cannot be ignored and a professional infrastructure not yet built. We argue that neither enthusiastic adoption nor principled abstention is sufficient in the current environment. The clinician who refuses to discuss clinically material patient AI use is not preventing that use; they may lose visibility into a factor materially affecting the therapeutic process. The clinician who adopts AI without structured evaluation exposes patients and practice to avoidable harm. The stance we propose is structured harm reduction within the therapeutic relationship: inviting discussion at intake, integrating material use into case formulation, discussing benefits and limits, establishing crisis boundaries, monitoring throughout treatment, and addressing termination planning. Clinician-initiated use is a separate choice requiring evidence, consent when applicable, privacy safeguards, and accountability. We propose a phased clinical framework spanning preintake to termination anchored by the gather, understand, inform, document, and evaluate (GUIDE) mnemonic as an operational wrapper for daily practice. GUIDE and the phased framework are conceptual, unvalidated proposals. We distinguish ethical recommendations, established legal duties, and predicted standards; scope the legal discussion to the United States; integrate equity and subgroup performance; and offer proportionate implementation. The patients who seek care in an AI-saturated world deserve professional infrastructure capable of holding innovation and patient protection in informed balance.
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.