A Framework for Evaluating Appropriateness, Trustworthiness, and Safety in Mental Wellness AI Chatbots
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a framework for evaluating the appropriateness, trustworthiness, and safety of mental wellness AI chatbots.
- The framework assesses chatbots across three key dimensions: clinical appropriateness, user trust, and ethical safety.
- The authors argue that this comprehensive evaluation is crucial for ensuring the responsible development and deployment of mental health AI assistants.
Plain English Explanation
Mental wellness chatbots are AI-powered conversational agents designed to provide support and guidance for people's mental health and well-being. However, as these technologies become more advanced and widespread, it is critical to ensure they are appropriate, trustworthy, and safe for users.
This paper introduces a framework to evaluate mental wellness chatbots across three important areas:
-
Clinical Appropriateness: Does the chatbot's knowledge, responses, and overall interaction align with clinical best practices for mental health support? Can it recognize when a user may be in crisis and provide suitable guidance?
-
User Trust: Does the chatbot inspire confidence in users? Does it behave in a transparent, unbiased, and empathetic manner that builds trust?
-
Ethical Safety: Are there adequate safeguards to protect user privacy and prevent potential harms, such as the chatbot providing harmful advice or exacerbating mental health issues?
By comprehensively assessing chatbots in these domains, the authors aim to help developers and deployers ensure these AI assistants are responsible, effective, and beneficial for people's mental health and well-being. The framework provides a structured approach to identify areas for improvement and ensure mental wellness chatbots are appropriately designed and deployed.
Technical Explanation
The paper first reviews related literature on the use of AI chatbots for mental health support, highlighting both the potential benefits and risks of these technologies. The authors then propose a three-part framework for evaluating mental wellness chatbots:
-
Clinical Appropriateness: This dimension assesses the chatbot's alignment with clinical best practices, its ability to identify and respond to user distress, and the quality and accuracy of its mental health guidance.
-
User Trust: This dimension examines factors that influence user trust, such as the chatbot's transparency, empathy, and lack of bias in its interactions.
-
Ethical Safety: This dimension focuses on safeguards to protect user privacy and prevent potential harms, including inappropriate or harmful responses from the chatbot.
The authors describe specific metrics and evaluation methods for each dimension, drawing on relevant research in human-computer interaction, ethical AI, and clinical psychology. They also discuss the importance of involving end-users, mental health experts, and other stakeholders in the evaluation process.
The proposed framework is intended to provide a structured, comprehensive approach to assessing the suitability and safety of mental wellness chatbots before they are deployed, helping to ensure these AI assistants are beneficial and trustworthy for users.
Critical Analysis
The authors make a strong case for the need to carefully evaluate mental wellness chatbots, given the sensitive nature of mental health support and the potential risks of these technologies. The three-part framework they propose covers crucial aspects of responsible AI development, including clinical appropriateness, user trust, and ethical safety.
One potential limitation of the framework is that it may be challenging to operationalize and apply in practice, particularly for smaller or resource-constrained chatbot development teams. The authors acknowledge this and suggest involving multidisciplinary teams and external experts in the evaluation process.
Additionally, the framework focuses on the chatbot's design and functionality, but does not directly address the broader social and societal implications of deploying mental wellness AI assistants at scale. Further research may be needed to understand how these technologies could impact the mental health ecosystem, access to care, and the overall well-being of individuals and communities.
Despite these potential challenges, the proposed framework represents an important step towards ensuring that mental wellness chatbots are developed and used responsibly. By prioritizing clinical validity, user trust, and ethical safeguards, the authors aim to help create AI assistants that can genuinely support people's mental health and well-being.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive framework for evaluating the appropriateness, trustworthiness, and safety of mental wellness AI chatbots. By assessing these technologies across clinical, user trust, and ethical dimensions, the authors aim to help developers and deployers ensure that mental health AI assistants are responsible, effective, and beneficial for users.
The framework's systematic approach to evaluation can help identify areas for improvement and ensure that mental wellness chatbots are designed and deployed in a way that prioritizes user well-being and ethical considerations. As AI-powered mental health support becomes more prevalent, this type of multifaceted evaluation will be crucial for realizing the full potential of these technologies while mitigating potential risks and harms.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
A Framework for Evaluating Appropriateness, Trustworthiness, and Safety in Mental Wellness AI Chatbots
Lucia Chen, David A. Preece, Pilleriin Sikka, James J. Gross, Ben Krause
Large language model (LLM) chatbots are susceptible to biases and hallucinations, but current evaluations of mental wellness technologies lack comprehensive case studies to evaluate their practical applications. Here, we address this gap by introducing the MHealth-EVAL framework, a new role-play based interactive evaluation method designed specifically for evaluating the appropriateness, trustworthiness, and safety of mental wellness chatbots. We also introduce Psyfy, a new chatbot leveraging LLMs to facilitate transdiagnostic Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). We demonstrate the MHealth-EVAL framework's utility through a comparative study of two versions of Psyfy against standard baseline chatbots. Our results showed that Psyfy chatbots outperformed the baseline chatbots in delivering appropriate responses, engaging users, and avoiding untrustworthy responses. However, both Psyfy and the baseline chatbots exhibited some limitations, such as providing predominantly US-centric resources. While Psyfy chatbots were able to identify most unsafe situations and avoid giving unsafe responses, they sometimes struggled to recognize subtle harmful intentions when prompted in role play scenarios. Our study demonstrates a practical application of the MHealth-EVAL framework and showcases Psyfy's utility in harnessing LLMs to enhance user engagement and provide flexible and appropriate responses aligned with an evidence-based CBT approach.
Read more7/17/2024
👨🏫
0
Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Tools
Jung In Park, Mahyar Abbasian, Iman Azimi, Dawn Bounds, Angela Jun, Jaesu Han, Robert McCarron, Jessica Borelli, Jia Li, Mona Mahmoudi, Carmen Wiedenhoeft, Amir Rahmani
Objective: This study aims to develop and validate an evaluation framework to ensure the safety and reliability of mental health chatbots, which are increasingly popular due to their accessibility, human-like interactions, and context-aware support. Materials and Methods: We created an evaluation framework with 100 benchmark questions and ideal responses, and five guideline questions for chatbot responses. This framework, validated by mental health experts, was tested on a GPT-3.5-turbo-based chatbot. Automated evaluation methods explored included large language model (LLM)-based scoring, an agentic approach using real-time data, and embedding models to compare chatbot responses against ground truth standards. Results: The results highlight the importance of guidelines and ground truth for improving LLM evaluation accuracy. The agentic method, dynamically accessing reliable information, demonstrated the best alignment with human assessments. Adherence to a standardized, expert-validated framework significantly enhanced chatbot response safety and reliability. Discussion: Our findings emphasize the need for comprehensive, expert-tailored safety evaluation metrics for mental health chatbots. While LLMs have significant potential, careful implementation is necessary to mitigate risks. The superior performance of the agentic approach underscores the importance of real-time data access in enhancing chatbot reliability. Conclusion: The study validated an evaluation framework for mental health chatbots, proving its effectiveness in improving safety and reliability. Future work should extend evaluations to accuracy, bias, empathy, and privacy to ensure holistic assessment and responsible integration into healthcare. Standardized evaluations will build trust among users and professionals, facilitating broader adoption and improved mental health support through technology.
Read more8/12/2024
0
Can AI Relate: Testing Large Language Model Response for Mental Health Support
Saadia Gabriel, Isha Puri, Xuhai Xu, Matteo Malgaroli, Marzyeh Ghassemi
Large language models (LLMs) are already being piloted for clinical use in hospital systems like NYU Langone, Dana-Farber and the NHS. A proposed deployment use case is psychotherapy, where a LLM-powered chatbot can treat a patient undergoing a mental health crisis. Deployment of LLMs for mental health response could hypothetically broaden access to psychotherapy and provide new possibilities for personalizing care. However, recent high-profile failures, like damaging dieting advice offered by the Tessa chatbot to patients with eating disorders, have led to doubt about their reliability in high-stakes and safety-critical settings. In this work, we develop an evaluation framework for determining whether LLM response is a viable and ethical path forward for the automation of mental health treatment. Using human evaluation with trained clinicians and automatic quality-of-care metrics grounded in psychology research, we compare the responses provided by peer-to-peer responders to those provided by a state-of-the-art LLM. We show that LLMs like GPT-4 use implicit and explicit cues to infer patient demographics like race. We then show that there are statistically significant discrepancies between patient subgroups: Responses to Black posters consistently have lower empathy than for any other demographic group (2%-13% lower than the control group). Promisingly, we do find that the manner in which responses are generated significantly impacts the quality of the response. We conclude by proposing safety guidelines for the potential deployment of LLMs for mental health response.
Read more5/21/2024
💬
0
Risks from Language Models for Automated Mental Healthcare: Ethics and Structure for Implementation
Declan Grabb, Max Lamparth, Nina Vasan
Amidst the growing interest in developing task-autonomous AI for automated mental health care, this paper addresses the ethical and practical challenges associated with the issue and proposes a structured framework that delineates levels of autonomy, outlines ethical requirements, and defines beneficial default behaviors for AI agents in the context of mental health support. We also evaluate fourteen state-of-the-art language models (ten off-the-shelf, four fine-tuned) using 16 mental health-related questionnaires designed to reflect various mental health conditions, such as psychosis, mania, depression, suicidal thoughts, and homicidal tendencies. The questionnaire design and response evaluations were conducted by mental health clinicians (M.D.s). We find that existing language models are insufficient to match the standard provided by human professionals who can navigate nuances and appreciate context. This is due to a range of issues, including overly cautious or sycophantic responses and the absence of necessary safeguards. Alarmingly, we find that most of the tested models could cause harm if accessed in mental health emergencies, failing to protect users and potentially exacerbating existing symptoms. We explore solutions to enhance the safety of current models. Before the release of increasingly task-autonomous AI systems in mental health, it is crucial to ensure that these models can reliably detect and manage symptoms of common psychiatric disorders to prevent harm to users. This involves aligning with the ethical framework and default behaviors outlined in our study. We contend that model developers are responsible for refining their systems per these guidelines to safeguard against the risks posed by current AI technologies to user mental health and safety. Trigger warning: Contains and discusses examples of sensitive mental health topics, including suicide and self-harm.
Read more8/16/2024