焦虑
随机对照试验
认知行为疗法
心理干预
临床心理学
干预(咨询)
认知疗法
探索性研究
认知
心理学
医学
认知重构
定性研究
年轻人
临床试验
物理疗法
自我效能感
计算机辅助网络访谈
精神科
梅德林
作者
Weihao Huang,Yiyang Wu,Yujin Shen,Haoran Song,Yuehua Chen,Ruoyu Lin,Yue Wang,X H Yang
出处
期刊:Healthcare
[Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute]
日期:2026-05-13
卷期号:14 (10): 1325-1325
标识
DOI:10.3390/healthcare14101325
摘要
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) delivered by an AI chatbot versus human peer counselors (participants were told it was AI) in reducing anxiety symptoms in young adults. Methods: Ninety young adults with mild-to-severe anxiety were randomized to a 4-week intervention of AI-CBT (n = 30), peer-counselor-CBT (n = 30), or a no-intervention control (n = 30). The primary outcome, anxiety, was assessed at baseline, mid-point, and post-intervention. Secondary outcomes (the self-efficacy for exercise, sleep quality), psychotherapy benefit, and qualitative user experiences were also evaluated. Results: Both AI and human-delivered interventions led to significant within-group reductions in anxiety (p < 0.05). However, in the primary intention-to-treat analysis, neither intervention demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over the no-intervention control group at post-intervention. A secondary per-protocol analysis suggested a benefit for the human-delivered intervention among study completers. Notably, participants in the AI group reported significantly lower perceived treatment benefit than the human group (p < 0.001). Qualitative analyses indicated that while AI was valued for accessibility and consistency, human intervention was perceived as more flexible in guidance, individualized, emotionally supportive, and conducive to deeper exploration. Conclusions: In this exploratory trial, both AI- and peer-counselor-CBT showed within-group promise, but the evidence does not support their efficacy over a no-intervention control. The AI’s limitations in providing flexible, emotionally supportive, and personalized interaction likely explain the efficacy gap observed between the two interventions. While AI may serve as a scalable support tool, claims of clinical efficacy require significant caution. These preliminary findings warrant replication in a prospectively registered confirmatory trial.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI