The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting Mental Health Symptoms: Breaking Down Barriers to Care with Virtual Human Interviewers
Open accessAbstract
A common barrier to healthcare for psychiatric conditions is the stigma associated with these disorders. Perceived stigma prevents many from reporting their symptoms. Stigma is a particularly pervasive problem among military service members, preventing them from reporting symptoms of combat-related conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, research shows increased reporting by service members when anonymous assessments are used. For example, service members report more symptoms of PTSD when they anonymously answer the Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) symptom checklist compared to the official PDHA, which is identifiable and linked to their military records. To investigate the factors that influence reporting of psychological symptoms by service members, we used a transformative technology: automated virtual humans that interview people about their symptoms. Such virtual human interviewers allow simultaneous use of two techniques for eliciting disclosure that would otherwise be incompatible; they afford anonymity while also building rapport. We examined whether virtual human interviewers could increase disclosure of mental health symptoms among active-duty service members that just returned from a year-long deployment in Afghanistan. Service members reported more symptoms during a conversation with a virtual human interviewer than on the official PDHA. They also reported more to a virtual human interviewer than on an anonymized PDHA. A second, larger sample of active-duty and former service members found a similar effect that approached statistical significance. Because respondents in both studies shared more with virtual human interviewers than an anonymized PDHA -even though both conditions control for stigma and ramifications for service members’ military records- virtual human interviewers that build rapport may provide a superior option to encourage reporting.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Researchers further found that relational agents, which were built based on the theory of rapport, can induce users' openness (77, 78).”
From Digital Therapeutic Alliance With Fully Automated Mental Health Smartphone Apps: A Narrative Review (2022) · cites this paper as [78]
In the citing paper
“It is purported that embodiment makes conversations with chatbots more empathetic and facilitates effective rapport with users [19,42,43].”
From Effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health: systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [42]
In the citing paper
“This may make artificial intelligence chatbots more effective in building rapport with users, thereby improving their mental health [42].”
From Effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health: systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [42]
In the citing paper
“chatbots may encourage interaction by those who have traditionally been reluctant to seek mental health advice due to stigmatization [6, 12].”
From An overview of the features of chatbots in mental health: A scoping review (2019) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Most previous chatbot research relied on either finite-state (ie, dialog consisting of a sequence of predetermined steps or states) or frame-based systems (ie, dialog is not predetermined but dependent on the content of the user’s input and the information that the system has to elicit) [34-36].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040603 · Cited by 4,778
Psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist (PCL)
Blanchard, E. B., Jones-Alexander, J., Buckley, T. C., & Forneris, C. A. (1996) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(96)00033-2 · Cited by 3,997
Hoge, C. W., Auchterlonie, J. L., & Milliken, C. S. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.9.1023 · Cited by 2,027
Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity
Joinson, A. N. (2001) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.36 · Cited by 1,458
Link, B. G., Struening, E. L., Neese-Todd, S., Asmussen, S., & Phelan, J. C. (2001) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.52.12.1621 · Cited by 1,254
Thornicroft, G., Brohan, E., Rose, D. S., Sartorius, N., & Leese, M. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61817-6 · Cited by 1,189
It's only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose
Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., King, A., & Morency, L.-P. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043 · Cited by 977
Self-citationThe nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1 · Cited by 960 · cited 2×
“Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1990) suggest several features of “the human element” that are important in increasing rapport, including both verbal and non-verbal behavior.”
BackgroundThomas, J. L., Wilk, J. E., Riviere, L. A., McGurk, D., Castro, C. A., & Hoge, C. W. (2010) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.54 · Cited by 942
Fear, N. T., Jones, M., Murphy, D., Hull, L., Iversen, A. C., Coker, B., Machell, L., Sundin, J., Woodhead, C., Jones, N., et al. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60672-1 · Cited by 606
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Haylan, 2005, Challenges Ahead. Head Movements and Other Social Acts in Conversation
- 2014, Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military and Veteran Populations: Final Assessment
- 2010, The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America
- Sebestik, 1988, “Initial experiences with CAPI,”, 357
- Vincenzes, 2013, Comparison of civilian trauma and combat trauma, Vistas Online, 45, 1
- 2011, The Global Economic Burden of Non-Communicable Diseases
- 2004, The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–308 of 308
Viitanen, K., & Heikkilä, J. (2026) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2026.107427
Perry, A., & Cameron, C. D. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009639057.009
Tschopp, M. V., Klein, S. H., Anderl, C., Sætra, H. S., & Utz, S. (2026) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2026-4-2
Panicker, S. G., & Majumdar, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9109-0.ch006
Evaluating Metaverse Support Groups for Displaced Populations
Rizzo, A. S., Popoviciu, C. M., Zhamaliyeva, S., Zaborot, I., Deac, G., & Giosan, C. (2026) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Disability Virtual Reality & Associated Technologies · doi:10.54337/aau.icdvrat26.01
Self-citationChen, X., Wang, S., Chen, C., Zhao, Y., & Yu, G. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2738478
Marquardt, M., Graf, P., Hillmann, S., Voigt‐Antons, J., Harnisch, P. L., Ashrafi, N., Compagna, D., & Zoellick, J. C. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261484852
Wang, Y., Zhanghui, W. A. N. G., Yu, Z. O. U., Song, Y., Xia, G., Chen, S., Haowei, G. U. O., Chenxi, C. A. O., Xinsheng, Y. A. N. G., Deng, Z., et al. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.109218
Metadata
- Authors
- Lucas, G. M., Rizzo, A., Gratch, J., Scherer, S., Stratou, G., Boberg, J., & Morency, L.-P.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lucas, Gale M.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Robotics and AI
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2017-10-12
- Volume
- 4
- ISSN
- 2296-9144 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2763552934
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9
- FWCI
- 24.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Robotics and AI (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Defense Sciences Office, DARPA
- Army Research Office
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- stigma, post-traumatic stress disorder, military personnel, anonymity, rapport building, disclosure, Afghanistan deployment
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
