Cited by 37Digital Mental Health InterventionsSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMental Health via Writing

Thematic Analysis on User Reviews for Depression and Anxiety Chatbot Apps: Machine Learning Approach

Open access
Ahmed, Arfan, Aziz, Sarah, Khalifa, Mohamed, Shah, Uzair, Hassan, Asma, Abd-Alrazaq, Alaa, Househ, Mowafa·2022·JMIR Formative Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Anxiety and depression are among the most commonly prevalent mental health disorders worldwide. Chatbot apps can play an important role in relieving anxiety and depression. Users’ reviews of chatbot apps are considered an important source of data for exploring users’ opinions and satisfaction. Objective: This study aims to explore users’ opinions, satisfaction, and attitudes toward anxiety and depression chatbot apps by conducting a thematic analysis of users’ reviews of 11 anxiety and depression chatbot apps collected from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. In addition, we propose a workflow to provide a methodological approach for future analysis of app review comments. Methods: We analyzed 205,581 user review comments from chatbots designed for users with anxiety and depression symptoms. Using scraper tools and Google Play Scraper and App Store Scraper Python libraries, we extracted the text and metadata. The reviews were divided into positive and negative meta-themes based on users’ rating per review. We analyzed the reviews using word frequencies of bigrams and words in pairs. A topic modeling technique, latent Dirichlet allocation, was applied to identify topics in the reviews and analyzed to detect themes and subthemes. Results: Thematic analysis was conducted on 5 topics for each sentimental set. Reviews were categorized as positive or negative. For positive reviews, the main themes were confidence and affirmation building, adequate analysis, and consultation, caring as a friend, and ease of use. For negative reviews, the results revealed the following themes: usability issues, update issues, privacy, and noncreative conversations. Conclusions: Using a machine learning approach, we were able to analyze ≥200,000 comments and categorize them into themes, allowing us to observe users’ expectations effectively despite some negative factors. A methodological workflow is provided for the future analysis of review comments.

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 · 10.2196/27654

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Meta-analyses indicate that the therapeutic effects of rule-based AI chatbots are small and not sustained over time, and users report frustration with responses that feel empty, generic, nonsensical, repetitive and constrained.

    “Meta-analyses indicate that the therapeutic effects are small and not sustained over time24, and users report frustration with responses that feel empty, generic20, nonsensical, repetitive and constrained19–22.”
  • Rule-based chatbot apps have more promising user engagement, with positive app store ratings and qualitative studies finding that users appreciate the human-like interaction and social support.

    “Rule-based chatbot apps have more promising user engagement, with positive app store ratings19,20 and qualitative studies finding that users appreciate the human-like interaction and social support19–23.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmed, A., Aziz, S., Khalifa, M., Shah, U., Hassan, A., Abd-Alrazaq, A., & Househ, M.
Affiliations
  • Hamad bin Khalifa University (QA)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Househ, Mowafa
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2022-03-11
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e27654
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206789363
Cited by
37
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
  • Qatar National Research Fund (NPRP12S-0303-190204, NPRP12S-)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
depression, anxiety, online reviews, app reviews, user satisfaction, mental health apps, usability problems, privacy concerns, topic modeling, latent Dirichlet allocation, bigrams, sentiment analysis, digital mental health

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