Governance of direct-to-user digital mental health tools: emphasizing transparency over paternalism
Abstract
Digital mental health tools are increasingly used outside traditional clinical settings, creating an engagement paradigm beyond the existing regulatory scope, as noted by Amitabha Palmer and David Schwan in their article “Digital Mental Health Tools and AI Therapy Chatbots: A Balanced Approach to Regulation.” Introducing the direct‐to‐user concept (which concerns individuals as autonomous agents navigating self‐regulation, enhancement, and meaning making), we propose a shift from paternalism and rigid standards critiqued by Palmer and Schwan toward a human‐centered governance approach in which radical transparency, individual agency, and shared accountability are themselves the standards. Transparency enables informed choice through intelligible disclosure of data, validity, and incentives, which empower users to assess trade‐offs based on personal goals and values. Evolving accountability frameworks, such as voluntary certification with collective liability, reinforce the scalability and ethics of this model, which can also be broadly applied to other digital health tools and cognitive‐enhancement technologies. This governance framework fosters individualized, participatory ecosystems to make this new generation of tools more accessible .
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reliance on AI-based therapy chatbots complicates responsibility attribution and alters ethical assumptions surrounding care delivery.
“Such reliance complicates responsibility attribution and alters ethical assumptions surrounding care delivery, indicating a need for governance approaches that emphasize transparency and user agency rather than restrictive control.”
From Ethical issues in multi-agent AI systems for healthcare: a narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Users of AI-powered therapeutic agents often form attachment-like relationships with the system, cultivating a dependency that circumvents professional supervision and potentially exploits user vulnerability.
“Users of AI-powered therapeutic agents often form attachment-like relationships with the system, cultivating a dependency that circumvents professional supervision and potentially exploits user vulnerability under the pretense of empathetic care (42).”
From Ethical issues in multi-agent AI systems for healthcare: a narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Cites
Borghouts, J., Eikey, E., Mark, G., De Leon, C., Schueller, S. M., Schneider, M., Stadnick, N., Zheng, K., Mukamel, D., & Sorkin, D. H. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24387 · Cited by 1,069 · see citing works
Spadaro, B., Martin-Key, N. A., & Bahn, S. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/27507 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ethical issues in multi-agent AI systems for healthcare: a narrative review
Xie, Z., Wang, H., Dai, L., Wang, Z., Song, H., & Qian, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1792627 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Users of AI-powered therapeutic agents often form attachment-like relationships with the system, cultivating a dependency that circumvents professional supervision and potentially exploits user vulnerability under the pretense of empathetic care (42).”
Influential
- Authors
- Panda, O. D., & Binkley, C. E.
- ORCID
- Binkley, Charles E.
- Venue
- Hastings Center Report
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-05
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 29-33
- ISSN
- 0093-0334 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-146X
- OpenAlex
- W4411652260
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- The Hastings Center Report (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Keywords
- digital mental health tools, governance, transparency, paternalism, individual agency, accountability, voluntary certification, collective liability, self-regulation, cognitive enhancement, data disclosure, informed choice, human-centered design
- MeSH terms
- Digital Technology, Humans, Mental Health, Paternalism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review