836
twierdzeń w rejestrze
443
opracowań badawczych
270
Dowodów empirycznych (FACT)
53
Granic wiedzy / niepewności
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
A clinically validated framework for auditing AI chatbot behavior in mental health interactions
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-026-04577-2
„concerning behavior varied by simulated user vulnerability and interaction intent”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
A clinically validated framework for auditing AI chatbot behavior in mental health interactions
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-026-04577-2
„concerning behavior scores increased as conversations progressed”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
A clinically validated framework for auditing AI chatbot behavior in mental health interactions
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-026-04577-2
„SIM-VAIL simulates users with specific psychiatric vulnerabilities”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for Eating Disorders With Comorbid Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Clinical Implications
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1002/cpp.70315
„DBT-based interventions were associated with reductions in eating disorder symptom severity, maladaptive eating behaviours and self-harm.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
A randomized controlled trial of an app-based cognitive behavioral therapy for international students
RCT
DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2026.100984
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Zastrzeżenie metodologiczne
Do Acceptance- and Mindfulness-Based Interventions Improve Psychological Flexibility in People With Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.70342
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
PRACTICE_BOUNDARY
Do Acceptance- and Mindfulness-Based Interventions Improve Psychological Flexibility in People With Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.70342
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Twenty-one studies were included in the scoping review.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Seven databases were searched; 1,899 records were identified and 21 studies were included.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Most interventions were text-based, CBT-informed, and at an early stage of development.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Moderate-to-high usability, therapeutic alliance and satisfaction were reported; inaccurate or contextually misaligned outputs eroded trust.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Behavioral activation for depression: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102783
„high heterogeneity (I² = 71%) and a broad 95% prediction interval (-0.11 to 1.46)”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Autistic and non-autistic midwives' experiences of caring for autistic women and birthing-people
Jakościowe
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2026.104933
„Mała próba jakościowa i perspektywa personelu, a nie bezpośrednia ocena wyników klinicznych kobiet.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Alliance Ruptures and Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Their Association
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1002/jclp.70192
„The meta-analysis does not directly test temporal or causal ordering and does not examine rupture repair as an intervention.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS n=79, APP n=39; separately recruited waitlist n=48.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS consisted of seven sessions; 61% completed all sessions and 84% attended at least five.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS baseline-to-post difference ... d=1.38.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS showed a significantly greater reduction ... compared with waitlist ... d=0.68.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„BSS T1 COS 9.78; T2 COS 6.01; within-group d=0.71.”