The Digital Mental Health Paradox: Is Now the Time to Unlock the Potential?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Generative AI's capabilities represent a significant opportunity for digital mental health, with media reports of increasing consumer usage, one meta-analysis finding generative AI chatbots more effective than rule-based ones at reducing psychological distress, and a pilot study showing promising results from ChatGPT usage in psychiatric inpatient care.
“Generative AI’s capabilities represent a significant opportunity for digital mental health37, with media reports of increasing consumer usage38,39, one meta-analysis finding generative AI chatbots more effective than rule-based ones at reducing psychological distress40, and a pilot study showing promising results from ChatGPT usage in psychiatric inpatient care41.”
From “It happened to be the perfect thing”: experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 2
- Authors
- Torous, J.
- Corresponding author
- Torous, John
- ORCID
- Torous, John
- Venue
- Harvard Undergraduate Health Policy Review
- Publisher
- Harvard Health Policy Review
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- OpenAlex
- W4384488743
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- digital mental health, mental health technology, digital health adoption, mental health services
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
