aceModerate evidence
Published recordHealthThe Trace
More
Chatbot‐Delivered Interventions for Improving Mental Health Among Young People: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2736raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 8e042d54c2c2…check it
BACKGROUND: The characteristics, application, and effectiveness of chatbots in improving the mental health of young people have yet to be confirmed through systematic review and meta-analysis. AIM: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of chatbot-delivered interventions for improving mental health among young people, identify factors influencing effectiveness, and examine feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: To identify eligible interventional studies, we systematically searched 11 databas…
59Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
58Problem side
The gain
A meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials found chatbot-delivered interventions reduced psychological distress in people aged 10 to 24 by a small-to-moderate margin (Hedges' g = -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10) compared with control conditions.
The problem
The same meta-analysis of seven randomized trials found chatbot interventions produced no statistically significant improvement in young people's psychological well-being (g = 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.41), and the evidence was rated low certainty.
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
Most studies were in nonclinical populations in educational settings and developed countries, the trials carried risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity, and too few studies existed to assess long-term effects.
Sources
1 on file- Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursingdoi:10.1111/wvn.70059
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Psychological well-being in young people with chatbot-delivered interventions compared with control conditions
Hedges' g 0.13 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.41)
search to September 2024
The review’s own words
The meta-analysis indicated that chatbot-delivered interventions significantly reduced distress (Hedge's g = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.10]), but did not have a significant effect on psychological well-being (Hedge's g = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41]).
Psychological distress with AI-based chatbots compared with control
Hedges' g −0.36 (95% CI −0.58 to −0.14)
8 studies · search to September 2024
The review’s own words
while AI‐based chatbots ( g = −0.36, 95% CI [−0.58, −0.14], n = 8) exhibited a stronger effect compared to rule‐based chatbots ( g = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.39, 0.20], n = 4)
Psychological distress in clinical or subclinical young people with chatbot-delivered interventions
Hedges' g −0.34 (95% CI −0.57 to −0.10)
5 studies · search to September 2024
The review’s own words
Regarding psychological distress, a statistically significant reduction was observed in the clinical/subclinical population ( g = −0.34, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.10], n = 5)
Psychological distress in young people with chatbot-delivered interventions compared with control conditions
Hedges' g -0.28 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.10)
11 studies · search to September 2024
The review’s own words
The meta-analysis indicated that chatbot-delivered interventions significantly reduced distress (Hedge's g = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.10]), but did not have a significant effect on psychological well-being (Hedge's g = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41]).
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2736, v1: “Chatbot‐Delivered Interventions for Improving Mental Health Among Young People: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2736 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 8e042d54c2c2712b…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2736 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.