Efficacy of mobile app-based interactive cognitive behavioral therapy using a chatbot for panic disorder
Open accessAbstract
Background Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a well-established treatment for panic disorder, but many fewer patients receive this treatment compared to medication-based therapy. Mobile app-based interactive CBT using a chatbot can increase patient access to CBT. We performed a preliminary study to determine whether short-term use of a newly developed chatbot is feasible and effective for relieving panic symptoms.Method Forty-one patients were randomly assigned to either a chatbot group (n = 21) or control group (n = 20) for a period of 4 weeks. The chatbot group was guided in the use of the chatbot application, while the control group was provided with a book on panic disorder.Main results The severity of panic disorder was significantly decreased in the chatbot group, but not in the control group. The social phobia score was significantly decreased and the control helplessness score was significantly increased in the chatbot group compared to the control group.Discussion and conclusion We found that mobile app-based interactive CBT using the chatbot was feasible and effective for reducing the severity of panic symptoms. Using this novel approach to provide CBT would allow clinicians to effect positive therapeutic outcomes with easy accessibility, interactivity, and self-management for patients with panic symptoms.
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?
Previous studies have demonstrated that chatbot interventions improve psychological difficulties including major depressive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, antipsychotic medication adherence, and perceived stress.
“Previous studies have demonstrated that chatbot interventions improve psychological difficulties including major depressive disorder [15], panic disorder [16], posttraumatic stress disorder [17], antipsychotic medication adherence [18], and perceived stress [19].”
From A Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Chatbot (Otis) for Health Anxiety Management: Mixed Methods Pilot Study (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 124
- Authors
- Oh, J., Jang, S., Kim, H., & Kim, J.-J.
- Affiliations
- Yonsei University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Kim, Jae-Jin
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 140
- Pages
- 104171
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3024128774
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 12.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National IT Industry Promotion Agency
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- panic disorder, chatbots, digital mental health interventions, social anxiety disorder, helplessness, panic symptoms, self-management, feasibility
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Case-Control Studies, Panic Disorder, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Mobile Applications
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
