Cited by 141Digital Mental Health InterventionsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Assessing the Effectiveness of ChatGPT in Delivering Mental Health Support: A Qualitative Study

Open access
Alanezi, Fahad·2024·Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare

Abstract

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications are widely researched for their potential in effectively improving the healthcare operations and disease management. However, the research trend shows that these applications also have significant negative implications on the service delivery. Purpose: To assess the use of ChatGPT for mental health support. Methods: Due to the novelty and unfamiliarity of the ChatGPT technology, a quasi-experimental design was chosen for this study. Outpatients from a public hospital were included in the sample. A two-week experiment followed by semi-structured interviews was conducted in which participants used ChatGPT for mental health support. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 individuals with mental health conditions. Results: Eight positive factors (psychoeducation, emotional support, goal setting and motivation, referral and resource information, self-assessment and monitoring, cognitive behavioral therapy, crisis interventions, and psychotherapeutic exercises) and four negative factors (ethical and legal considerations, accuracy and reliability, limited assessment capabilities, and cultural and linguistic considerations) were associated with the use of ChatGPT for mental health support. Conclusion: It is important to carefully consider the ethical, reliability, accuracy, and legal challenges and develop appropriate strategies to mitigate them in order to ensure safe and effective use of AI-based applications like ChatGPT in mental health support.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/jmdh.s447368

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LLM-CBs' constant availability, non-judgmental attitudes, knowledge of psychotherapeutic concepts, and perceived empathy make them appear attractive as mental health support tools, especially in societies with logistical and resource-based limitations in mental health treatment.

    “LLM-CBs’ constant availability, non-judgmental attitudes, knowledge of psychotherapeutic concepts, and perceived empathy make them appear as attractive mental health support tools149,150, especially in societies marked by logistical and resource-based limitations in mental health treatment151.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [150]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Qualitative studies published so far include thematic analyses of user forum comments on both generative AI and rule-based DMHIs, student survey responses on companion-focused generative AI chatbots, and semi-structured interviews with hospital outpatients who were asked to try ChatGPT for mental health support.

    “Qualitative studies published so far include thematic analyses of user forum comments on both generative AI and rule-based DMHIs23, student survey responses on companion-focused generative AI chatbots48, and semi-structured interviews with hospital outpatients who were asked to try ChatGPT for mental health support49.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [20]Aljanabi M, Ghazi M, Ali AH, Abed SA. ChatGpt: open Possibilities. Iraqi J Computer Sci Mathematics. 2023; 4(1): 62– 64.
  2. [45]Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison M. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2007.
  3. [46]Brinkmann S. Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing. The Oxford handbook of qualitative research; 2014: 277– 299.
  4. [56]Biswas SS. Role of chat GPT in public health. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2023; 51(5): 868– 869. 36920578

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alanezi, F.
Affiliations
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (SA)
Corresponding author
Alanezi, Fahad
Venue
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Published
2024-01
Volume
Volume 17
Pages
461-471
ISSN
1178-2390 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391405701
Cited by
139
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 21
FWCI
54.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
ChatGPT, mental health support, artificial intelligence in healthcare, AI chatbots, psychoeducation, emotional support, cognitive behavioral therapy, crisis intervention, legal and ethical considerations, language and cultural barriers, outpatients

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