Cited by 119Digital Mental Health InterventionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Artificial Intelligence Chatbot for Depression: Descriptive Study of Usage.

Open access
Dosovitsky, Gilly, Pineda, Blanca S, Jacobson, Nicholas C, Chang, Cyrus, Escoredo, Milagros, Bunge, Eduardo L·2020·JMIR Formative Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chatbots could be a scalable solution that provides an interactive means of engaging users in behavioral health interventions driven by artificial intelligence. Although some chatbots have shown promising early efficacy results, there is limited information about how people use these chatbots. Understanding the usage patterns of chatbots for depression represents a crucial step toward improving chatbot design and providing information about the strengths and limitations of the chatbots. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand how users engage and are redirected through a chatbot for depression (Tess) to provide design recommendations. METHODS: Interactions of 354 users with the Tess depression modules were analyzed to understand chatbot usage across and within modules. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participant flow through each depression module, including characters per message, completion rate, and time spent per module. Slide plots were also used to analyze the flow across and within modules. RESULTS: Users sent a total of 6220 messages, with a total of 86,298 characters, and, on average, they engaged with Tess depression modules for 46 days. There was large heterogeneity in user engagement across different modules, which appeared to be affected by the length, complexity, content, and style of questions within the modules and the routing between modules. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants engaged with Tess; however, there was a heterogeneous usage pattern because of varying module designs. Major implications for future chatbot design and evaluation are discussed in the paper.

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 · 10.2196/17065

Cites

25 of 25 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?

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: 1

  1. [7]Rauws M Quick J Spangler N X2 AI Tess: Working With AI Technology Partners The Journal of Employee Assistance 2019 2020-01-11 http://hdl.handle.net/10713/8448

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dosovitsky, G., Pineda, B. S., Jacobson, N. C., Chang, C., Escoredo, M., & Bunge, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Palo Alto University (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • xAI (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Bunge, Eduardo L
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2020-11-13
Volume
4
Issue
11
Pages
e17065
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3091416888
Cited by
118
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 11
FWCI
12.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
chatbots, depression, user engagement, behavioral health interventions, chatbot design, completion rates

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