Evidence Hub

Safety and User Experience of a Generative Artificial Intelligence Digital Mental Health Intervention: Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial

Tim Campellone, M. Flom, Robert Montgomery, Lauren Bullard, M. Pirner, Aaron Pavez, Michelle Morales, Devin Harper et al.

Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2025

160 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

Background General awareness and exposure to generative artificial intelligence (AI) have increased recently. This transformative technology has the potential to create a more dynamic and engaging user experience in digital mental health interventions (DMHIs). However, if not appropriately used and controlled, it can introduce risks to users that may result in harm and erode trust. At the time of conducting this trial, there had not been a rigorous evaluation of an approach to safely implementing generative AI in a DMHI. Objective This study aims to explore the user relationship, experience, safety, and technical guardrails of a DMHI using generative AI compared with a rules-based intervention. Methods We conducted a 2-week exploratory randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 160 adult participants randomized to receive a generative AI (n=81) or rules-based (n=79) version of a conversation-based DMHI. Self-report measures of the user relationship (client satisfaction, working alliance bond, and accuracy of empathic listening and reflection) and experience (engagement metrics, adverse events, and technical guardrail success) were collected. Descriptions and validation of technical guardrails for handling user inputs (eg, detecting potentially concerning language and off-topic responses) and model outputs (eg, not providing medical advice and not providing a diagnosis) are provided, along with examples to illustrate how they worked. Safety monitoring was conducted throughout the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 160 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free