ReviewGlobal mental health (Cambridge, England)2026
Mental health chatbots and their technical features: A systematic review of reviews and a thematic analysis.
Review in Global mental health (Cambridge, England), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health is a global issue, and mobile applications, such as chatbots, offer a partial solution by providing improved services through various communication forms. This study aimed to identify chatbots and their technical features in mental health services. This study conducted a systematic review of mental health chatbots and their technical features from 2000 to 2025. A search was performed across databases such as PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest and the Cochrane database. The CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) appraisal checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies. In the next step, the Braun and Clarke's approach was utilized for conducting thematic analysis on the data. The search yielded 2,921 records, of which 10 were duplicates and removed. After screening for relevance and eligibility, 33 papers met all the requirements. The mean quality score of the included studies was 13.36 (standard deviation = 1.36). The studies had a moderate risk of bias, as they mostly had a clear question, searched for the right type of papers, included all relevant papers and reported the results precisely. The research conducted an analysis of 138 mental health chatbots, categorizing them based on five distinct attributes: the disorder they target, their input and output modalities, the platform they operate on and their method of generating responses. The research emphasized the need for designing chatbots that suit patients' preferences and needs, and also indicated that the digital divide within societies should be taken into account when designing and producing chatbots for mental health services. Although mental health chatbots can assist underserved communities, ethical concerns must be addressed before their deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.