Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39983102›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2025

Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Conversational AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review.

Mehrdad Rahsepar Meadi, Tomas Sillekens, Suzanne Metselaar, Anton van Balkom, Justin Bernstein, Neeltje Batelaan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mehrdad Rahsepar MeadiDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5637-3349
Tomas SillekensGGZ Centraal Mental Health Care, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5928-9333
Suzanne MetselaarDepartment of Ethics, Law, & Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8655-7082
Anton van BalkomDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-0208
Justin BernsteinDepartment of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4837-5832
Neeltje BatelaanDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6444-3781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConversational artificial intelligence (CAI) is emerging as a promising digital technology for mental health care. CAI apps, such as psychotherapeutic chatbots, are available in app stores, but their use raises ethical concerns.

objectiveWe aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of ethical considerations surrounding CAI as a therapist for individuals with mental health issues.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, the Philosopher's Index, and ACM Digital Library databases. Our search comprised 3 elements: embodied artificial intelligence, ethics, and mental health. We defined CAI as a conversational agent that interacts with a person and uses artificial intelligence to formulate output. We included articles discussing the ethical challenges of CAI functioning in the role of a therapist for individuals with mental health issues. We added additional articles through snowball searching. We included articles in English or Dutch. All types of articles were considered except abstracts of symposia. Screening for eligibility was done by 2 independent researchers (MRM and TS or AvB). An initial charting form was created based on the expected considerations and revised and complemented during the charting process. The ethical challenges were divided into themes. When a concern occurred in more than 2 articles, we identified it as a distinct theme.

resultsWe included 101 articles, of which 95% (n=96) were published in 2018 or later. Most were reviews (n=22, 21.8%) followed by commentaries (n=17, 16.8%). The following 10 themes were distinguished: (1) safety and harm (discussed in 52/101, 51.5% of articles); the most common topics within this theme were suicidality and crisis management, harmful or wrong suggestions, and the risk of dependency on CAI; (2) explicability, transparency, and trust (n=26, 25.7%), including topics such as the effects of "black box" algorithms on trust; (3) responsibility and accountability (n=31, 30.7%); (4) empathy and humanness (n=29, 28.7%); (5) justice (n=41, 40.6%), including themes such as health inequalities due to differences in digital literacy; (6) anthropomorphization and deception (n=24, 23.8%); (7) autonomy (n=12, 11.9%); (8) effectiveness (n=38, 37.6%); (9) privacy and confidentiality (n=62, 61.4%); and (10) concerns for health care workers' jobs (n=16, 15.8%). Other themes were discussed in 9.9% (n=10) of the identified articles.

conclusionsOur scoping review has comprehensively covered ethical aspects of CAI in mental health care. While certain themes remain underexplored and stakeholders' perspectives are insufficiently represented, this study highlights critical areas for further research. These include evaluating the risks and benefits of CAI in comparison to human therapists, determining its appropriate roles in therapeutic contexts and its impact on care access, and addressing accountability. Addressing these gaps can inform normative analysis and guide the development of ethical guidelines for responsible CAI use in mental health care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMental DisordersMental Health ServicesHumansartificial intelligencechatbotconversational agentconversational agentsdigital technologyethicsmental healthmHealthmobile healthnatural language processingpsychotherapistpsychotherapyqualitativescoping review

Identifiers

PMID39983102
PMCPMC11890142

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.