MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410572098 · doi:10.2196/74411

Future Me, a Prospection-Based Chatbot to Promote Mental Well-Being in Youth: Two Exploratory User Experience Studies

2025· article· en· W4410572098 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Dechant, Eva Lash, Sarah Shokr, Ciarán O’Driscoll

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintProspectionPsychologyExploratory researchApplied psychologyWorld Wide WebSociologyComputer scienceSocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Digital interventions have been proposed as a solution to meet the growing demand for mental health support. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising technology for creating more personalized and adaptive mental health chatbots. While LLMs generate responses based on statistical patterns in training data rather than through conscious reasoning, they can be designed to support important psychological processes. Prospection-the ability to envision and plan for future outcomes-represents a transdiagnostic process altered across various mental health conditions that could be effectively targeted through such interventions. We designed "Future Me," an LLM-powered chatbot designed to facilitate future-oriented thinking and promote goal pursuit using evidence-based interventions including visualization, implementation intentions, and values clarification. Objective: This study aims to understand how users engage with Future Me, evaluate its effectiveness in supporting future-oriented thinking, and assess its acceptability across different populations, with particular attention to postgraduate students' stress management needs. We also seek to identify design improvements that could enhance the chatbot's ability to support users' mental well-being. Methods: In total, 2 complementary studies were conducted. Study 1 (n=20) examined how postgraduate students used Future Me during a single guided session, followed by semistructured interviews. Study 2 (n=14) investigated how postgraduate students interacted with Future Me over a 1-week period, with interviews before and after usage. Both studies analyzed conversation transcripts and interview data using thematic analysis to understand usage patterns, perceived benefits, and limitations. Results: Across both studies, participants primarily engaged with Future Me to discuss career or education goals, personal obstacles, and relationship concerns. Users valued Future Me's ability to provide clarity around goal-setting (85% of participants), its nonjudgmental nature, and its 24/7 accessibility (58%). Future Me effectively facilitated self-reflection (80%) and offered new perspectives (70%), particularly for broader future-oriented concerns. However, both studies revealed limitations in the chatbot's ability to provide personalized emotional support during high-stress situations, with participants noting that responses sometimes felt formulaic (50%) or lacked emotional depth. Postgraduate students specifically emphasized the need for greater context awareness during periods of academic stress (58%). Overall, 57% of requests occurred outside office hours, dropping from 40 on day 1 to 12 by day 7. Conclusions: Future Me demonstrates promise as an accessible tool for promoting prospection skills and supporting mental well-being through future-oriented thinking. However, effectiveness appears context-dependent, with prospection techniques more suitable for broader life decisions than acute stress situations. Future development should focus on creating more adaptive systems that can adjust their approach based on the user's emotional state and immediate needs. Rather than attempting to replicate human therapy entirely, chatbots like Future Me may be most effective when designed as complementary tools within broader support ecosystems, offering immediate guidance while facilitating connections to human support when needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.420 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→