Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Conversational AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) is emerging as a promising digital technology for mental health care. CAI apps, such as psychotherapeutic chatbots, are available in app stores, but their use raises ethical concerns. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of ethical considerations surrounding CAI as a therapist for individuals with mental health issues. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, the Philosopher's Index, and ACM Digital Library databases. Our search comprised 3 elements: embodied artificial intelligence, ethics, and mental health. We defined CAI as a conversational agent that interacts with a person and uses artificial intelligence to formulate output. We included articles discussing the ethical challenges of CAI functioning in the role of a therapist for individuals with mental health issues. We added additional articles through snowball searching. We included articles in English or Dutch. All types of articles were considered except abstracts of symposia. Screening for eligibility was done by 2 independent researchers (MRM and TS or AvB). An initial charting form was created based on the expected considerations and revised and complemented during the charting process. The ethical challenges were divided into themes. When a concern occurred in more than 2 articles, we identified it as a distinct theme. RESULTS: We included 101 articles, of which 95% (n=96) were published in 2018 or later. Most were reviews (n=22, 21.8%) followed by commentaries (n=17, 16.8%). The following 10 themes were distinguished: (1) safety and harm (discussed in 52/101, 51.5% of articles); the most common topics within this theme were suicidality and crisis management, harmful or wrong suggestions, and the risk of dependency on CAI; (2) explicability, transparency, and trust (n=26, 25.7%), including topics such as the effects of "black box" algorithms on trust; (3) responsibility and accountability (n=31, 30.7%); (4) empathy and humanness (n=29, 28.7%); (5) justice (n=41, 40.6%), including themes such as health inequalities due to differences in digital literacy; (6) anthropomorphization and deception (n=24, 23.8%); (7) autonomy (n=12, 11.9%); (8) effectiveness (n=38, 37.6%); (9) privacy and confidentiality (n=62, 61.4%); and (10) concerns for health care workers' jobs (n=16, 15.8%). Other themes were discussed in 9.9% (n=10) of the identified articles. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review has comprehensively covered ethical aspects of CAI in mental health care. While certain themes remain underexplored and stakeholders' perspectives are insufficiently represented, this study highlights critical areas for further research. These include evaluating the risks and benefits of CAI in comparison to human therapists, determining its appropriate roles in therapeutic contexts and its impact on care access, and addressing accountability. Addressing these gaps can inform normative analysis and guide the development of ethical guidelines for responsible CAI use in mental health care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,173 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,022 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».