Seeking Emotional and Mental Health Support From Generative AI: Mixed-Methods Study of ChatGPT User Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models have emerged as a promising yet controversial tool for mental health. Objective: The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences of individuals who repeatedly used ChatGPT (GenAI) for emotional and mental health support (EMS). Methods: We recruited 270 adult participants across 29 countries who regularly used ChatGPT (OpenAI) for EMS during April 2024. Participants responded to quantitative survey questions on the frequency and helpfulness of using ChatGPT for EMS, and qualitative questions regarding their therapeutic purposes, emotional experiences of using, and perceived helpfulness and rationales. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results: Most participants reported using ChatGPT for EMS at least 1-2 times per month for purposes spanning traditional mental health needs (diagnosis, treatment, and psychoeducation) and general psychosocial needs (companionship, relational guidance, well-being improvement, and decision-making). Users reported various emotional experiences during and after use for EMS (eg, connected, relieved, curious, embarrassed, or disappointed). Almost all users found it at least somewhat helpful. The rationales for perceived helpfulness include perceived changes after use, emotional support, professionalism, information quality, and free expression, whereas the unhelpful aspects include superficial emotional engagement, limited information quality, and lack of professionalism. Conclusions: Despite the absence of ethical regulations for EMS use, GenAI is becoming an increasingly popular self-help tool for emotional and mental health support. These results highlight the blurring boundary between formal mental health care and informal self-help and underscore the importance of understanding the relational and emotional dynamics of human-GenAI interaction. There is an urgent need to promote AI literacy and ethical awareness among community users and health care providers and to clarify the conditions under which GenAI use for mental health promotes well-being or poses risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".