This is a repository copy of An overview of the features of chatbots in mental health: A scoping review.

Background The global shortage of mental health workers has prompted the utilization of technological advancements, such as chatbots, to meet the needs of people with mental health conditions. Chatbots are systems that are able to converse and interact with human users using spoken, written, and visual language. While numerous studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of using chatbots in mental health, no reviews have pooled the results of those studies. Objective This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health through summarizing and pooling the results of previous studies. Methods A systematic review was carried out to achieve this objective. The search sources were 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO), the search engine “Google Scholar,” and backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Data extracted from studies were synthesized using narrative and statistical methods, as appropriate. Results Of 1048 citations retrieved, we identified 12 studies examining the effect of using chatbots on 8 outcomes. Weak evidence demonstrated that chatbots were effective in improving depression, distress, stress, and acrophobia. In contrast, according to similar evidence, there was no statistically significant effect of using chatbots on subjective psychological wellbeing. Results were conflicting regarding the effect of chatbots on the severity of anxiety and positive and negative affect. Only two studies assessed the safety of chatbots and concluded that they are safe in mental health, as no adverse events or harms were reported. Conclusions Chatbots have the potential to improve mental health. However, the evidence in this review was not sufficient to definitely conclude this due to lack of evidence that their effect is clinically important, a lack of studies assessing each outcome, high risk of bias in those studies, and conflicting results for some outcomes. Further studies are required to draw solid conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of chatbots. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019141219; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019141219

Background Chatbots have been used in the last decade to improve access to mental health care services. Perceptions and opinions of patients influence the adoption of chatbots for health care. Many studies have been conducted to assess the perceptions and opinions of patients about mental health chatbots. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no review of the evidence surrounding perceptions and opinions of patients about mental health chatbots. Objective This study aims to conduct a scoping review of the perceptions and opinions of patients about chatbots for mental health. Methods The scoping review was carried out in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Studies were identified by searching 8 electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE and Embase) in addition to conducting backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. In total, 2 reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data from the included studies. Data were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results Of 1072 citations retrieved, 37 unique studies were included in the review. The thematic analysis generated 10 themes from the findings of the studies: usefulness, ease of use, responsiveness, understandability, acceptability, attractiveness, trustworthiness, enjoyability, content, and comparisons. Conclusions The results demonstrated overall positive perceptions and opinions of patients about chatbots for mental health. Important issues to be addressed in the future are the linguistic capabilities of the chatbots: they have to be able to deal adequately with unexpected user input, provide high-quality responses, and have to show high variability in responses. To be useful for clinical practice, we have to find ways to harmonize chatbot content with individual treatment recommendations, that is, a personalization of chatbot conversations is required.

Background In December 2019, COVID-19 broke out in Wuhan, China, leading to national and international disruptions in health care, business, education, transportation, and nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been leveraged amid the COVID-19 pandemic; however, little is known about its use for supporting public health efforts. Objective This scoping review aims to explore how AI technology is being used during the COVID-19 pandemic, as reported in the literature. Thus, it is the first review that describes and summarizes features of the identified AI techniques and data sets used for their development and validation. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the guidelines of PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). We searched the most commonly used electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo) between April 10 and 12, 2020. These terms were selected based on the target intervention (ie, AI) and the target disease (ie, COVID-19). Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and data extraction. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the extracted data. Results We considered 82 studies out of the 435 retrieved studies. The most common use of AI was diagnosing COVID-19 cases based on various indicators. AI was also employed in drug and vaccine discovery or repurposing and for assessing their safety. Further, the included studies used AI for forecasting the epidemic development of COVID-19 and predicting its potential hosts and reservoirs. Researchers used AI for patient outcome–related tasks such as assessing the severity of COVID-19, predicting mortality risk, its associated factors, and the length of hospital stay. AI was used for infodemiology to raise awareness to use water, sanitation, and hygiene. The most prominent AI technique used was convolutional neural network, followed by support vector machine. Conclusions The included studies showed that AI has the potential to fight against COVID-19. However, many of the proposed methods are not yet clinically accepted. Thus, the most rewarding research will be on methods promising value beyond COVID-19. More efforts are needed for developing standardized reporting protocols or guidelines for studies on AI.

Background Dialog agents (chatbots) have a long history of application in health care, where they have been used for tasks such as supporting patient self-management and providing counseling. Their use is expected to grow with increasing demands on health systems and improving artificial intelligence (AI) capability. Approaches to the evaluation of health care chatbots, however, appear to be diverse and haphazard, resulting in a potential barrier to the advancement of the field. Objective This study aims to identify the technical (nonclinical) metrics used by previous studies to evaluate health care chatbots. Methods Studies were identified by searching 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) in addition to conducting backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. The studies were independently selected by two reviewers who then extracted data from the included studies. Extracted data were synthesized narratively by grouping the identified metrics into categories based on the aspect of chatbots that the metrics evaluated. Results Of the 1498 citations retrieved, 65 studies were included in this review. Chatbots were evaluated using 27 technical metrics, which were related to chatbots as a whole (eg, usability, classifier performance, speed), response generation (eg, comprehensibility, realism, repetitiveness), response understanding (eg, chatbot understanding as assessed by users, word error rate, concept error rate), and esthetics (eg, appearance of the virtual agent, background color, and content). Conclusions The technical metrics of health chatbot studies were diverse, with survey designs and global usability metrics dominating. The lack of standardization and paucity of objective measures make it difficult to compare the performance of health chatbots and could inhibit advancement of the field. We suggest that researchers more frequently include metrics computed from conversation logs. In addition, we recommend the development of a framework of technical metrics with recommendations for specific circumstances for their inclusion in chatbot studies.