Cited by 263Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMental Health Treatment and Access

Application of Synchronous Text-Based Dialogue Systems in Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review

Open access
Hoermann, Simon, McCabe, Kathryn L, Milne, David N, Calvo, Rafael A·2017·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Synchronous written conversations (or "chats") are becoming increasingly popular as Web-based mental health interventions. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to evaluate and summarize the quality of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the current evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of online one-on-one mental health interventions that use text-based synchronous chat. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of the databases relevant to this area of research (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], PsycINFO, Central, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, IEEE, and ACM). There were no specific selection criteria relating to the participant group. Studies were included if they reported interventions with individual text-based synchronous conversations (ie, chat or text messaging) and a psychological outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 24 articles were included in this review. Interventions included a wide range of mental health targets (eg, anxiety, distress, depression, eating disorders, and addiction) and intervention design. Overall, compared with the waitlist (WL) condition, studies showed significant and sustained improvements in mental health outcomes following synchronous text-based intervention, and post treatment improvement equivalent but not superior to treatment as usual (TAU) (eg, face-to-face and telephone counseling). CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility studies indicate substantial innovation in this area of mental health intervention with studies utilizing trained volunteers and chatbot technologies to deliver interventions. While studies of efficacy show positive post-intervention gains, further research is needed to determine whether time requirements for this mode of intervention are feasible in clinical practice.

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/jmir.7023

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Of extant systematic reviews on AI chatbots, 6 targeted assessing efficacy in enhancing mental health outcomes, 2 examined feasibility in health care settings, and 1 described technical architectures and characteristics in chronic conditions.

    “Of the extant systematic reviews on AI chatbots, 6 articles targeted at assessing efficacy of AI-chatbots in enhancing mental health outcomes [1,7,9-12], 2 examined the feasibility of AI-chatbots in health care settings [8,13], and 1 described the technical architectures and characteristics of the AI chatbots used in chronic conditions [14].”

    From Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots for Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: Systematic Review. (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Abstract (Objective; page unavailable) identifies this as a systematic review of the effectiveness of synchronous text-based mental health interventions, so it fits the cited group of efficacy-focused reviews. But the Results (Feasibility and Acceptability Studies; page unavailable) say interventions were mostly delivered by professionals, with chatbots among the technologies studied. The review is therefore not specifically an assessment of AI-chatbot efficacy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Overall, our mixed results regarding feasibility, acceptability, and usability are partially aligned with the findings of the existing systematic reviews that reported heterogeneity in these secondary outcome measures and results across studies.

    “Overall, our mixed results regarding feasibility, acceptability, and usability are partially aligned with the findings of the existing systematic reviews that reported heterogeneity in these secondary outcome measures and results across studies [1,2,7,9-11].”

    From Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots for Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: Systematic Review. (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results > Study Selection section reports significant heterogeneity across studies in conditions, psychological outcomes, intervention design, and subjective ratings; Results > Feasibility and Acceptability Studies also describes a wide range of studies. The cited review does not specifically report heterogeneous usability measures or mixed feasibility, acceptability, and usability results, so it supports the broader point but not all of the attributed detail. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing systematic and scoping reviews of conversational agent interventions in mental health have focused on a subset of conversational agents with a visual character (embodied) or are now outdated.

    “Recent existing reviews have focused exclusively on a subset of embodied conversational agent interventions despite other modalities aiming to achieve the common goal of improved mental health.”
  • Conversational agents or chatbots that deliver CBT via a text-based, semiautomated algorithm are known to reduce mild-to-moderate depressive symptoms in nonclinical populations.

    “Conversational agents or “chatbots” that deliver CBT via a text-based, semiautomated algorithm are known to reduce mild-to-moderate depressive symptoms in nonclinical populations [17,20-23].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Milne D Hoermann S Calvo R A trial of real-time text-based support for young people CHI - Computing and Mental Health Workshop 2016 CHI 2016 08 May 2016 San Jose, California, USA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoermann, S., McCabe, K. L., Milne, D. N., & Calvo, R. A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Calvo, Rafael A
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-08-07
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
e267
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2744519557
Cited by
263
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP130100453, FT140100824)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
digital mental health interventions, chatbots, text messaging, feasibility, intervention effectiveness, usual care, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, addiction, psychological outcomes
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Humans, Mental Health, Text Messaging

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