SynthesisJMIR mental health2026
Effectiveness of Chatbots in Mental Health Screening and Assessment: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR mental 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health disorders affect 970 million people globally; yet, over 50% do not access timely evaluation due to structural barriers and professional shortages. Chatbots and AI-based conversational agents have emerged as promising tools for mental health screening and assessment. Objective: This study systematically evaluated the effectiveness, accuracy, reliability, and acceptability of chatbots and AI-based conversational agents for mental health screening and assessment in adults. Methods: Systematic search conducted in May 2025 across PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science (2019-2025), following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies evaluated chatbots or AI for mental health screening/assessment in adults (≥18 y). Risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools (Risk of Bias 2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool). This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD420251072392). Results: Eighteen studies (2021-2025) were included, with samples ranging from 20 to 3902 participants. Rule-based chatbots demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach α >0.85) and good acceptability (Acceptability of Intervention Measure >19/25). Generative models (large language models) achieved sensitivities of 0.84 to 0.93 and specificities of 0.80 to 0.96 for depression and anxiety, with correlations up to Conclusions: Chatbots and AI conversational agents demonstrate clinically relevant performance in mental health screening and assessment. However, safe implementation requires clear clinical protocols, professional supervision, integration with electronic health records, and active mitigation of algorithmic bias. These technologies should complement rather than replace clinical judgment.
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.