arxiv: 2604.09575 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-24 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

Talking to a Human as an Attitudinal Barrier: A Mixed Methods Evaluation of Stigma, Access, and the Appeal of AI Mental Health Support

Caitlin A. Stamatis , Emma C. Wolfe , Matteo Malgaroli , Thomas D. Hull This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 20:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY

keywords AI mental healthstigma barrierstherapy accessconversational AIperceived helpfulnessuser engagementmixed methodsprior therapy experience

0 comments

The pith

Shame and access barriers to therapy predict higher perceived helpfulness of AI mental health support, especially among those with prior therapy experience.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how different barriers to traditional psychotherapy relate to how people rate the helpfulness of a conversational AI tool called Ash. Shame or stigma barriers and access barriers were linked to higher helpfulness ratings, while cost and coverage barriers showed no such link. The shame effect was stronger among participants who had previously received therapy. Access and cost barriers also predicted greater actual engagement with the tool, measured by number of sessions used. These patterns point to AI support filling gaps for users facing specific deterrents to human therapy.

Core claim

Shame/stigma barriers (B=.45, p<.001) and access barriers (B=.31, p=.020) predicted higher perceived helpfulness of the AI tool, but cost/coverage barriers did not (B=.13, p=.262). Prior therapy experience moderated the shame effect (interaction B=.56, p=.036), with shame predicting higher helpfulness among therapy-experienced users but not therapy-naive users. Among therapy-experienced participants, shame/stigma and access barriers predicted more favorable ratings, while access barriers predicted higher engagement (IRR=1.64, p<.001) and cost/coverage barriers predicted 70% more sessions (IRR=1.70, p<.001).

What carries the argument

Linear regression models linking coded open-text barrier themes (shame/stigma, access, cost/coverage) to helpfulness ratings on a 1-5 scale, including interaction terms for prior therapy experience, plus negative binomial regression for counts of total sessions used.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported barriers and helpfulness ratings accurately reflect real-world attitudes and behaviors without substantial influence from survey demand characteristics, social desirability bias, or the hypothetical framing of the AI tool.

What would settle it

A real-world deployment study that tracks actual session counts and symptom outcomes for users screened into high versus low shame/stigma groups and compares those rates against a no-AI control condition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09575 by Caitlin A. Stamatis, Emma C. Wolfe, Matteo Malgaroli, Thomas D. Hull.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Regression coefficients for each of the 3 barrier types in a model predicting perceived helpfulness of AI therapy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Background: Many people who could benefit from therapy do not receive it. Conversational AI is increasingly used for mental health support, yet it is unclear which barriers AI helps mitigate. We examined whether evaluation-sensitive (shame/stigma) and structural barriers (cost/coverage/access) to psychotherapy predict perceived helpfulness of an AI mental health conversational tool (Ash), and whether effects differ by prior therapy experience or user engagement. Methods: Participants (n=395) rated Ash's helpfulness (1-5) and described barriers to therapy. Open-text responses were coded for shame/stigma, access, and cost/coverage themes. Linear regressions examined associations between barriers and perceived helpfulness, adjusting for demographics and mental health, with moderation by therapy experience. Results: Shame/stigma (B=.45, p<.001) and access barriers (B=.31, p=.020) predicted higher perceived helpfulness but cost/coverage did not (B=.13, p=.262). Prior therapy experience moderated the shame effect (interaction B=.56, p=.036): shame predicted higher helpfulness among therapy-experienced users ($\Delta$=.62, p<.001) but not therapy-naive users ($\Delta$=.03, p=.877). Among therapy-experienced participants (n=258), shame/stigma (B=.75, p<.001) and access barriers (B=.51, p=.006) predicted rating Ash more favorably. Access barriers predicted higher engagement (IRR=1.64, p<.001) and cost/coverage barriers predicted 70% more sessions (IRR=1.70, p<.001). Shame/stigma was not associated with total sessions (IRR=.80, p=.094). Conclusions: AI mental health support was perceived as most helpful by users facing shame/stigma and access barriers, particularly for therapy-experienced individuals. Access and cost barriers were most predictive of usage intensity, suggesting unmet needs. Findings highlight the importance of aligning AI tools for emotional support with user-reported barriers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Stigma and access barriers predict higher AI helpfulness ratings here, with moderation by therapy experience, but self-report and hypothetical framing leave bias risks unaddressed.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that users reporting shame/stigma or access barriers to therapy gave higher helpfulness ratings to the AI tool Ash, with prior therapy experience strengthening the stigma link, while access and cost barriers tied to more sessions used in the data. Cost barriers did not predict helpfulness the same way. They ran this on 395 participants with open-text barrier descriptions coded into themes, then linear regressions and some count models for engagement, adjusting for demographics and mental health. That separation of barrier types and the moderation test is what stands out as new compared to broader digital mental health barrier studies. The sample size supports the regressions, and splitting by therapy experience adds a practical angle on who might find AI appealing. The coding of open responses is a reasonable mixed-methods step. The soft spots sit in the measurement and design. Self-reported barriers and post-exposure ratings in what reads as a hypothetical setup can pick up demand characteristics or social desirability, especially when participants know the study is about AI mental health support. The abstract gives little on inter-rater reliability for the theme coding, exact covariate handling, or missing data, which makes it harder to gauge how stable the B=.45 and B=.31 coefficients really are. The engagement metrics coming from the same session further limits claims about real-world intensity. This is for HCI or digital mental health researchers who want concrete data on barrier-specific appeal rather than general stigma work. A reader focused on intervention targeting would find the differential predictions useful. It deserves peer review because the core associations are testable and the sample is adequate, though it will need tighter reporting on validity checks and bias mitigation to hold up.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a mixed-methods study (n=395) in which participants rated the perceived helpfulness of an AI mental health conversational tool (Ash) on a 1-5 scale and provided open-text descriptions of barriers to traditional psychotherapy. Thematic coding identified shame/stigma, access, and cost/coverage barriers; linear regressions (adjusted for demographics and mental health) showed shame/stigma (B=.45, p<.001) and access barriers (B=.31, p=.020) predicting higher helpfulness ratings, with prior therapy experience moderating the shame effect (interaction B=.56, p=.036). Among therapy-experienced participants, these barriers also predicted higher engagement intensity (e.g., access IRR=1.64, p<.001; cost IRR=1.70, p<.001). The authors conclude that AI support is perceived as most helpful by users facing stigma and access barriers.

Significance. If the reported associations prove robust after addressing measurement and bias concerns, the work would contribute meaningfully to HCI research on digital mental health by providing quantitative evidence that AI tools may differentially appeal to individuals with specific therapy barriers. The moderation and engagement analyses add nuance to targeting strategies, and the mixed-methods approach (regression plus thematic coding) offers a replicable template for future barrier studies.

major comments (3)

[Methods] Methods (thematic coding of barriers): The manuscript provides no information on inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen’s kappa or percentage agreement) for the coding of open-text responses into shame/stigma, access, and cost/coverage categories. Because these coded variables serve as the primary predictors in all regressions, the absence of reliability metrics is a load-bearing gap for the validity of the central claims.
[Results] Results (regression specification): The exact covariate set used in the linear models is not enumerated, nor is any description given of missing-data handling (e.g., listwise deletion, imputation). Without these details it is impossible to evaluate the robustness of the key coefficients (B=.45 for shame/stigma; B=.31 for access) or the moderation term.
[Discussion] Discussion/Limitations: The manuscript contains minimal discussion of demand characteristics, social-desirability bias, or the hypothetical framing of the Ash interaction. These factors are particularly relevant given that both barrier reports and helpfulness ratings are self-reported; their potential influence on the observed positive associations between barriers and AI appeal requires explicit treatment.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states n=395 but reports the therapy-experienced subsample as n=258 only in the results; moving the subsample size to the methods or abstract would improve clarity.
[Results] Tables reporting the regression models should include the full list of covariates, model R² values, and any variance-inflation diagnostics to allow readers to assess multicollinearity among barrier indicators.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. We believe the suggested revisions will strengthen the paper and have updated the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods (thematic coding of barriers): The manuscript provides no information on inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen’s kappa or percentage agreement) for the coding of open-text responses into shame/stigma, access, and cost/coverage categories. Because these coded variables serve as the primary predictors in all regressions, the absence of reliability metrics is a load-bearing gap for the validity of the central claims.

Authors: We agree that reporting inter-rater reliability is necessary to support the validity of the coded barrier variables. We will revise the Methods section to describe the coding procedure in detail, including that two independent coders reviewed all responses with disagreements resolved by consensus, and will report the resulting agreement metrics. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results (regression specification): The exact covariate set used in the linear models is not enumerated, nor is any description given of missing-data handling (e.g., listwise deletion, imputation). Without these details it is impossible to evaluate the robustness of the key coefficients (B=.45 for shame/stigma; B=.31 for access) or the moderation term.

Authors: We will update the Results section to explicitly list all covariates (age, gender, education, income, PHQ-9, and GAD-7 scores) and to describe the missing-data approach, which relied on listwise deletion given low rates of missingness. revision: yes
Referee: [Discussion] Discussion/Limitations: The manuscript contains minimal discussion of demand characteristics, social-desirability bias, or the hypothetical framing of the Ash interaction. These factors are particularly relevant given that both barrier reports and helpfulness ratings are self-reported; their potential influence on the observed positive associations between barriers and AI appeal requires explicit treatment.

Authors: We will expand the Limitations section to address demand characteristics, social-desirability bias, and the hypothetical nature of the Ash scenario. We will acknowledge that self-reported measures may be influenced by these factors and discuss how the observed moderation by therapy experience offers partial evidence that the associations are not entirely artifactual, while noting the need for behavioral validation in future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical survey analysis

full rationale

This paper is a mixed-methods empirical study that collects primary survey data (n=395), codes open-text responses for barriers, and applies standard linear regressions and negative binomial models to test associations between self-reported barriers and AI helpfulness/engagement ratings. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are present. All load-bearing steps rely on externally collected participant responses and conventional statistical procedures rather than reducing to self-citations or definitional equivalences. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks because it uses primary data and does not invoke prior author work to justify core premises.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of self-report measures and standard statistical assumptions for linear and count regressions; no new entities are postulated and no free parameters beyond the fitted regression coefficients are introduced.

axioms (2)

standard math Linear associations between barrier indicators and helpfulness ratings hold after demographic and mental health controls
Invoked by the reported linear regressions.
domain assumption Coded open-text responses accurately reflect participants' experienced barriers
Core to interpreting shame/stigma, access, and cost/coverage as predictors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1310 out tokens · 61895 ms · 2026-05-15T20:28:53.420413+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Engagement Phenotypes for a Sample of 102,684 AI Mental Health Chatbot Users and Dose-Response Associations with Clinical Outcomes
cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Five distinct engagement phenotypes emerged from large-scale chatbot data, with a dose-response link to depression improvement that held in both self-report and model-predicted outcomes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value

Arias D, Saxena S, Verguet S. Quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value. eClinicalMedicine Elsevier; 2022 Dec 1;54. PMID:36193171

work page 2022
[2]

Liu W, Zhang Y, Chen J, Li X, Huang Y, Zhao F, Chen F, Qu P, Li Y. Global burden and trends of major mental disorders in individuals under 24 years of age from 1990 to 2021, with projections to 2050: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Front Public Health 2025;13:1635801. PMID:41036122

work page 1990
[3]

Trends in mental health care and telehealth use across area deprivation: An analysis of electronic health records from 2016 to 2024

Ettman CK, Ringlein GV, Dohlman P, Straub J, Brantner CL, Chin ET, Sthapit S, Goicoechea EB, Mojtabai R, Albert M, Spivak S, Iwashyna TJ, Goes FS, Stuart EA, Zandi PP. Trends in mental health care and telehealth use across area deprivation: An analysis of electronic health records from 2016 to 2024. PNAS Nexus National Academy of Sciences; 2025 Feb 1;4(2)...

work page 2016
[4]

Treatment Gap for Anxiety Disorders is Global: Results of the World Mental Health Surveys in 21 countries

Alonso J, Liu Z, Evans-Lacko S, Sadikova E, Sampson N, Chatterji S, Abdulmalik J, Aguilar- Gaxiola S, Al-Hamzawi A, Andrade LH, Bruffaerts R, Cardoso G, Cia A, Florescu S, de Girolamo G, Gureje O, Haro JM, He Y, de Jonge P, Karam EG, Kawakami N, Kovess- Masfety V, Lee S, Levinson D, Medina-Mora ME, Navarro-Mateu F, Pennell B-E, Piazza M, Posada-Villa J, H...

work page 2018
[5]

Barriers to 12-month treatment of common anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders in the World Mental Health (WMH) surveys

Viana MC, Kazdin AE, Harris MG, Stein DJ, Vigo DV, Hwang I, Manoukian SM, Sampson NA, Alonso J, Andrade LH, Borges G, Bunting B, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, de Girolamo G, de Jonge P, Gureje O, Haro JM, Karam EG, Kovess-Masfety V, Moskalewicz J, Navarro-Mateu 30 F, Nishi D, Piazza M, Posada-Villa J, Scott KM, Vladescu C, Wojtyniak B, Zarkov Z, Kessler RC, Kessl...

work page 2025
[6]

Barriers and facilitators of older adults for professional mental health help-seeking: a systematic review

Elshaikh U, Sheik R, Saeed RKM, Chivese T, Alsayed Hassan D. Barriers and facilitators of older adults for professional mental health help-seeking: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2023 Aug 25;23(1):516. PMID:37626290

work page 2023
[7]

Large language models as mental health providers

Rousmaniere T, Goldberg SB, Torous J. Large language models as mental health providers. Lancet Psychiatry 2026 Jan;13(1):7–9. PMID:40939602

work page 2026
[8]

Spontaneous use of ChatGPT for mental health support: an exploratory study

Diaz L, Huguet A. Spontaneous use of ChatGPT for mental health support: an exploratory study. J Public Health 2026 Jan 16; doi: 10.1007/s10389-025-02668-x

work page doi:10.1007/s10389-025-02668-x 2026
[9]

Effectiveness and Safety of Using Chatbots to Improve Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abd-Alrazaq AA, Rababeh A, Alajlani M, Bewick BM, Househ M. Effectiveness and Safety of Using Chatbots to Improve Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020 July 13;22(7):e16021. PMID:32673216

work page 2020
[10]

Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI- based conversational agents for promoting mental health and well-being

Li H, Zhang R, Lee Y-C, Kraut RE, Mohr DC. Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI- based conversational agents for promoting mental health and well-being. Npj Digit Med Nature Publishing Group; 2023 Dec 19;6(1):236. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00979-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00979-5 2023
[11]

Delivering Cognitive Behavior Therapy to Young Adults With Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Using a Fully Automated Conversational Agent (Woebot): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Fitzpatrick KK, Darcy A, Vierhile M. Delivering Cognitive Behavior Therapy to Young Adults With Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Using a Fully Automated Conversational Agent (Woebot): A Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Health JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada; 2017 June 6;4(2):e7785. doi: 10.2196/mental.7785 31

work page doi:10.2196/mental.7785 2017
[12]

Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Conversational AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review

Rahsepar Meadi M, Sillekens T, Metselaar S, van Balkom A, Bernstein J, Batelaan N. Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Conversational AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review. JMIR Ment Health 2025 Feb 21;12:e60432. PMID:39983102

work page 2025
[13]

URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10

Moore J, Grabb D, Agnew W, Klyman K, Chancellor S, Ong DC, Haber N. Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers. Proc 2025 ACM Conf Fairness Account Transpar 2025. p. 599–627. doi: 10.1145/3715275.3732039

work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732039 2025
[14]

Do generative AI chatbots increase psychosis risk? World Psychiatry 2026 Feb;25(1):150–151

Keshavan M, Torous J, Yassin W. Do generative AI chatbots increase psychosis risk? World Psychiatry 2026 Feb;25(1):150–151. PMID:41536114

work page 2026
[15]

Emotion contagion through interaction with generative artificial intelligence chatbots may contribute to development and maintenance of mania

Østergaard SD. Emotion contagion through interaction with generative artificial intelligence chatbots may contribute to development and maintenance of mania. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2025 Aug 22;1–9. PMID:40843483

work page 2025
[16]

An Examination of Generative AI Response to Suicide Inquires: Content Analysis

Campbell LO, Babb K, Lambie GW, Hayes BG. An Examination of Generative AI Response to Suicide Inquires: Content Analysis. JMIR Ment Health JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada; 2025 Aug 14;12(1):e73623. doi: 10.2196/73623

work page doi:10.2196/73623 2025
[17]

The fight against stigma: an overview of stigma-reduction strategies and interventions

Heijnders M, Van Der Meij S. The fight against stigma: an overview of stigma-reduction strategies and interventions. Psychol Health Med 2006 Aug;11(3):353–363. PMID:17130071

work page 2006
[18]

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Psychotherapy Utilisation and How They Relate to Patient’s Psychotherapeutic Goals

Schaffler Y, Probst T, Jesser A, Humer E, Pieh C, Stippl P, Haid B, Schigl B. Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Psychotherapy Utilisation and How They Relate to Patient’s Psychotherapeutic Goals. Healthcare 2022 Nov 7;10(11):2228. PMID:36360569 32

work page 2022
[19]

Challenges and Opportunities to Meet the Mental Health Needs of Underserved and Disenfranchised Populations in the United States

Mongelli F, Georgakopoulos P, Pato MT. Challenges and Opportunities to Meet the Mental Health Needs of Underserved and Disenfranchised Populations in the United States. Focus American Psychiatric Publishing; 2020 Jan;18(1):16–24. PMID:32047393

work page 2020
[20]

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

Capraro V. The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation. J Pers Soc Psychol 2024 May;126(5):719–757. PMID:38227465

work page 2024
[21]

The Self We Know and the Self We Show: Self-esteem, Self-presentation, and the Maintenance of Interpersonal Relationships

Leary M. The Self We Know and the Self We Show: Self-esteem, Self-presentation, and the Maintenance of Interpersonal Relationships. Blackwell Publishing; 2004. doi: 10.1002/9780470998557.ch18

work page doi:10.1002/9780470998557.ch18 2004
[22]

The impact of shame on the therapeutic alliance and intimate relationships

Black RSA, Curran D, Dyer KFW. The impact of shame on the therapeutic alliance and intimate relationships. J Clin Psychol 2013 June;69(6):646–654. PMID:23382093

work page 2013
[23]

Distress tolerance: prospective associations with cognitive-behavioral therapy outcomes in adults with posttraumatic stress and substance use disorders

Vujanovic AA, Webber HE, McGrew SJ, Green CE, Lane SD, Schmitz JM. Distress tolerance: prospective associations with cognitive-behavioral therapy outcomes in adults with posttraumatic stress and substance use disorders. Cogn Behav Ther 2022 July;51(4):326–342. PMID:34994673

work page 2022
[24]

Addressing Shame Through Self Compassion

Cepni AB, Ma HY, Irshad AM, Yoe GK, Johnston CA. Addressing Shame Through Self Compassion. Am J Lifestyle Med 2024 Oct 23;19(2):194–197. PMID:39540177

work page 2024
[25]

Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States

Andersen R, Newman JF. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 1973;51(1):95–124. PMID:4198894 33

work page 1973
[26]

A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus

Cascio MA, Lee E, Vaudrin N, Freedman DA. A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods US: Sage Publications; 2019;31(2):116–130. doi: 10.1177/1525822X19838237

work page doi:10.1177/1525822x19838237 2019
[27]

Principles, Scope, and Limitations of the Methodological Triangulation

Arias Valencia MM. Principles, Scope, and Limitations of the Methodological Triangulation. Investig Educ En Enfermeria 2022 Sept 15;40(2):e03. PMID:36264691

work page 2022
[28]

Understanding young adults’ attitudes towards using AI chatbots for psychotherapy: The role of self-stigma

Hoffman BD, Oppert ML, Owen M. Understanding young adults’ attitudes towards using AI chatbots for psychotherapy: The role of self-stigma. Comput Hum Behav Artif Hum 2024 Aug 1;2(2):100086. doi: 10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100086

work page doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100086 2024
[29]

Health Care Robotics: Qualitative Exploration of Key Challenges and Future Directions

Cresswell K, Cunningham-Burley S, Sheikh A. Health Care Robotics: Qualitative Exploration of Key Challenges and Future Directions. J Med Internet Res JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada; 2018 July 4;20(7):e10410. doi: 10.2196/10410

work page doi:10.2196/10410 2018
[31]

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making

Capraro V, Lentsch A, Acemoglu D, Akgun S, Akhmedova A, Bilancini E, Bonnefon J-F, Brañas-Garza P, Butera L, Douglas KM, Everett JAC, Gigerenzer G, Greenhow C, Hashimoto DA, Holt-Lunstad J, Jetten J, Johnson S, Kunz WH, Longoni C, Lunn P, Natale S, Paluch S, Rahwan I, Selwyn N, Singh V, Suri S, Sutcliffe J, Tomlinson J, van der Linden S, Van Lange PAM, Wa...

work page doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191 2024
[32]

Between Rhetoric and Reality: Real-world Barriers to Uptake and Early Engagement in Digital Mental Health Interventions

Jardine J, Nadal C, Robinson S, Enrique A, Hanratty M, Doherty G. Between Rhetoric and Reality: Real-world Barriers to Uptake and Early Engagement in Digital Mental Health Interventions. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 2024 Feb 5;31(2):27:1-27:59. doi: 10.1145/3635472

work page doi:10.1145/3635472 2024
[33]

Understanding stakeholder views of the use of digital therapeutic interventions within children and young people’s mental health services

Gee B, Clarke T, Garner J, Teague B, Coote G, Dunne A, McGuire R, Laphan A, Rathee M, Wilson J. Understanding stakeholder views of the use of digital therapeutic interventions within children and young people’s mental health services. Front Psychiatry Frontiers; 2025 Feb 11;16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1505345

work page doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1505345 2025
[34]

Socioeconomic status, health care use, and outcomes: Persistence of disparities over time

Begley C, Basu R, Lairson D, Reynolds T, Dubinsky S, Newmark M, Barnwell F, Hauser A, Hesdorffer D. Socioeconomic status, health care use, and outcomes: Persistence of disparities over time. Epilepsia 2011;52(5):957–964. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02968.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02968.x 2011
[35]

Socioeconomic inequalities in the access to and quality of health care services

Nunes BP, Thumé E, Tomasi E, Duro SMS, Facchini LA. Socioeconomic inequalities in the access to and quality of health care services. Rev Saúde Pública 2014 Oct;48(6):968–976. PMID:26039400

work page 2014
[36]

Quantity and Quality of Homework Compliance: A Meta-Analysis of Relations With Outcome in Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Kazantzis N, Whittington C, Zelencich L, Kyrios M, Norton PJ, Hofmann SG. Quantity and Quality of Homework Compliance: A Meta-Analysis of Relations With Outcome in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Behav Ther 2016 Sept;47(5):755–772. PMID:27816086

work page 2016
[37]

Generative AI Purpose-built for Social and Mental Health: A Real-World Pilot

Hull TD, Zhang L, Arean PA, Malgaroli M. Generative AI Purpose-built for Social and Mental Health: A Real-World Pilot. arXiv; 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11689 35

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11689 2026
[38]

Beyond Simulations: What 20,000 Real Conversations Reveal About Mental Health AI Safety

Stamatis CA, Meyerhoff J, Zhang R, Tieleman O, Malgaroli M, Hull TD. Beyond Simulations: What 20,000 Real Conversations Reveal About Mental Health AI Safety. arXiv

work page
[39]

Power Users

doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17003 36 Supplementary Materials Supplementary Results Engagement data descriptives: Of the participants in the analytic sample, 307 (77.7%) had identifiable Mixpanel data. Total session counts did not differ between the analytic sample and excluded respondents (M=46.6, SD=111.2 vs. M=56.5, SD=108.0; t=-1.25, p=.213). The distribu...

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17003