Effectiveness of a Fully Automated Mobile Therapeutic Versus a General Chatbot in Reducing Depression and Anxiety and Improving Well-Being: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Abstract Background Given the increasing prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders and enduring barriers to care, there is a critical need for alternative treatment options. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots show promise for increasing access to mental health care, though more direct research is needed to establish their efficacy. Objective This pilot study aimed to test the efficacy of a generative mental health chatbot rooted in solution-focused therapy compared to the general-purpose ChatGPT and an assessment-only control (AOC) group on depression, anxiety, and well-being. Methods A total of 185 English-speaking adults were recruited online and randomly assigned to one of three groups: AI therapy, ChatGPT, or AOC. Of these, 147 eligible participants filled out a pretreatment assessment. Over a 3-week period, the AI therapy group (n=44) was instructed to complete 3 structured, fully automated app-based sessions per week (9 total), while the ChatGPT group (n=60) was instructed to engage in 9 unstructured conversations with ChatGPT (GPT-4o–based models). The control group (n=43) received no intervention. In the AI therapy group, 39% (n=17) completed all sessions, as did 62% (n=38) of those in the ChatGPT group. Primary outcome measures, self-assessed online at baseline and postintervention, included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS) (depression), 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale…
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: 147 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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.