Cited by 60Digital Mental Health InterventionsEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Is the Automation of Digital Mental Health Ethical? Applying an Ethical Framework to Chatbots for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Open access
Vilaza, Giovanna Nunes, McCashin, Darragh·2021·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the need for mental health support across the whole spectrum of the population. Where global demand outweighs the supply of mental health services, established interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) have been adapted from traditional face-to-face interaction to technology-assisted formats. One such notable development is the emergence of Artificially Intelligent (AI) conversational agents for psychotherapy. Pre-pandemic, these adaptations had demonstrated some positive results; but they also generated debate due to a number of ethical and societal challenges. This article commences with a critical overview of both positive and negative aspects concerning the role of AI-CBT in its present form. Thereafter, an ethical framework is applied with reference to the themes of (1) beneficence, (2) non-maleficence, (3) autonomy, (4) justice, and (5) explicability. These themes are then discussed in terms of practical recommendations for future developments. Although automated versions of therapeutic support may be of appeal during times of global crises, ethical thinking should be at the core of AI-CBT design, in addition to guiding research, policy, and real-world implementation as the world considers post-COVID-19 society.

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 · 10.3389/fdgth.2021.689736

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • The integration of AI into healthcare alters traditional decision-making practices based on epistemic probability and prudence and raises ethical, legal, and medical dilemmas when making critical decisions about human lives and medical conditions.

    “Additionally, the integration of AI into healthcare alters traditional decision-making practices based on epistemic probability and prudence (Parviainen, Rantala (2022)) and raises ethical, legal, and medical dilemmas when it comes to making critical decisions about human lives and medical conditions (Shaban-Nejad et al., 2021;Vilaza & McCashin, 2021).”

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. [34]Ma T Sharifi H Chattopadhyay D. Virtual humans in health-related interventions: a meta-analysis. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI EA'19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (2019). p. 1– 6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vilaza, G. N., & McCashin, D.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • Dublin City University (IE)
Corresponding author
Vilaza, Giovanna Nunes
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2021-08-06
Volume
3
Pages
689736-689736
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3187133801
Cited by
60
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
AI chatbots, cognitive behavioral therapy, digital mental health, AI ethics, beneficence, non-maleficence, patient autonomy, justice, explainability, ethical frameworks, technology-assisted therapy

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