JMIR Mental Health

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a complex and heterogeneous psychiatric condition, characterized by fluctuating clinical courses that affect approximately 1%‐2% of the global population in their lifetime. Despite pharmacological advances, treatment response varies significantly among patients, making the identification of individualized treatment strategies a major challenge. Artificial Intelligence (AI), through its classical approaches, has emerged as a powerful tool in precision psychiatry to identify subtle patterns in complex data and inform personalized clinical decisions.

The application of immersive technologies, particularly virtual reality, has expanded rapidly across health care domains, including mental health, rehabilitation, and education. These technologies enable the creation of controlled, interactive, and ecologically valid environments that can support therapeutic interventions, skill development, and behavioral assessment. Within forensic mental health services (FMHS) and prison settings, where individuals often present with complex psychological needs in restrictive and highly regulated environments, immersive technologies offer potential advantages such as safe simulation of real-world scenarios, enhanced engagement, and personalized intervention delivery. However, despite increasing interest, the evidence base remains fragmented, and questions persist regarding effectiveness, ethical implications, and feasibility of implementation in secure and resource-constrained contexts.

Temporal fluctuations in distress and suicidal ideation across daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles may influence the use and effectiveness of digital suicide prevention tools. Understanding patterns of app engagement, perceived suffering, and affective expression can inform the design of proactive, personalized digital interventions, thereby impacting adherence and efficacy.

Mobile mindfulness interventions have shown promise for reducing anxiety and depressive symptoms, but sustaining engagement remains a persistent challenge. Many digital programs still rely on formal practice that requires dedicated time, which may be difficult to integrate into daily life.

Digital cognitive interventions (DCIs) have emerged as scalable approaches for treating cognitive dysfunction across psychiatric, neurological, and aging populations. Despite growing evidence of efficacy, little is known about which intervention components drive therapeutic effects or through which neurocognitive mechanisms they operate. As a result, null findings are often difficult to interpret, making it unclear whether interventions failed to engage their intended targets, or whether the targets themselves are not causally related to meaningful outcomes. This limits intervention refinement, comparative evaluation, and precision personalization. Here, we argue that DCI research should shift from broad efficacy testing toward mechanistic trials designed to identify active ingredients—the intervention components responsible for engaging prespecified neurocognitive targets and producing clinically meaningful benefits. We propose adapting dismantling design methodology from psychotherapy research in order to integrate Research Domain Criteria constructs, mechanistic neuroscience, and high-resolution digital behavioral data to identify factors driving cognitive and functional outcomes. This approach aligns with the National Institute of Mental Health experimental therapeutics framework by explicitly linking target specification and target engagement with downstream clinical and functional outcomes. Mechanistic dismantling trials can determine whether specific DCI features, including adaptive difficulty, reward schedules, feedback contingencies, task variability, cognitive targets, and human support, are necessary, sufficient, or synergistic for engaging neural circuitry and producing durable and clinically meaningful transfer. Beyond optimizing intervention design, such studies may transform null or negative trials into mechanistically interpretable findings, while clarifying disease mechanisms and supporting the development of personalized, optimized, and usable DCIs.

The rapid evolution of large language models has accelerated the development of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems capable of pursuing autonomous goals, creating an urgent need for structural frameworks in psychiatry and psychotherapy. While existing classifications often draw parallels to autonomous driving, this paper argues that the mental health domain requires a distinct, domain-specific theoretical foundation, as the 2 domains differ fundamentally in their semantic, ideographic, and epistemological demands. Furthermore, they differ in their end goals, for which we introduce terms such as agentic guidance capability. To guide clinicians and researchers through these developments, we propose a 5-stage taxonomy for language-based AI systems that differentiates technical functionality from clinical effectiveness. The taxonomy progresses from level 1 (knowledge level), in which systems perform static benchmark tasks, to level 2 (elementary level), characterized by dynamic engagement in specific therapeutic microskills. At level 3 (integration level), systems achieve consistency across and within modules, as well as basic case-level conceptualization suitable for blended therapy under human oversight. Level 4 (saturation level) describes therapist-in-the-loop systems capable of autonomous functioning with minimal supervision, whereas level 5 (mastery level) represents AI systems that are technically capable of performing autonomous therapy. By distinguishing technical functionality from clinical effectiveness, we conclude that level 4 or level 5 performance does not automatically translate into full treatment effectiveness, even if high treatment fidelity can be achieved. We conclude by emphasizing the need to shift benchmarking from static knowledge tests to dynamic evaluations of therapeutic capabilities in order to safely navigate the transition toward autonomous care.

No preview text available.

In traditional human psychotherapy, the therapeutic alliance (TA) is regarded as a fundamental factor that describes the client-therapist relationship, mainly due to strong evidence demonstrating its impact on treatment outcomes regardless of theoretical orientation. More recently, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies have led to the emergence of the concept of digital TA, used to characterize the relationship between clients and AI-based therapeutic systems. This approach replicates human dynamics but overlooks key differences between human therapists and digital agents. Prematurely translating the concept of TA into the digital context fails to address issues such as the sycophantic tendencies of current systems and the inherent limitations of algorithmic interaction. We propose the digital therapeutic nexus, a framework that recognizes these differences and provides a set of structured criteria for categorizing digital interactions into 3 progressive levels. This Viewpoint argues that only at the highest level can parallels be drawn to the human TA and stratifies the main risks associated with each nexus level. Transitioning from the concept of alliance to that of a nexus offers a more precise conceptual basis for describing and evaluating digital therapeutic relationships, with implications for research, design, and the ethical development of AI-based mental health interventions.

As mental health research increasingly aims to generate societal impact, researchers operate at the intersection of innovation and ethical responsibility. Drawing on experiences from the cocreated NEON Young Norway Study on youth recovery narratives, this viewpoint identifies four ethical tensions that arise from the existing governance frameworks in youth digital mental health research: (1) balancing safeguarding against harm with youth participation, (2) protecting privacy without undermining authentic storytelling, (3) governing unpredictable outcomes of cocreated research, and (4) meeting ethical and legal standards while ensuring youth-friendly communication. These tensions highlight limitations in mental health research that adopts participatory and digital approaches, as this often struggles to accommodate iterative designs, narrative data, and cross-sector collaboration. We argue that responsible youth mental health research requires ethics to be understood as a dynamic, participatory practice that supports safe and equitable inclusion, rather than having a focus on risk prevention. Ethical governance, therefore, needs to evolve toward proportionate, context-sensitive approaches that can enable innovation while protecting young people’s rights, agency, and voices.

Safety planning is recognized as one of the most effective interventions for reducing suicidal behaviors. The quality of safety plans strongly depends on professional training, and traditional methods, such as role-playing, are time-consuming and offer limited opportunities for repetition across diverse patient profiles. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may provide innovative solutions by offering accessible, flexible, and realistic training environments.

Young people are among the most intensive users of digital and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)–enabled mental health tools, yet they remain underrepresented in the research and design processes that shape these technologies. Although participatory approaches such as co-design and patient and public involvement are widely endorsed as best practices, youth involvement in digital youth mental health (DYMH) research is often inconsistent, superficial, or limited to late-stage consultation. This participation gap risks producing interventions that are misaligned with young people’s lived experiences, priorities, and vulnerabilities, particularly in the context of rapidly evolving and scalable GenAI systems. This Viewpoint aims to reexamine the underlying drivers of the participation gap in DYMH research; clarify how participation is conceptualized and implemented across disciplines; and propose concrete, actionable recommendations to support more meaningful and consistent youth involvement across the research life cycle. We draw on interdisciplinary literature from digital mental health, human-computer interaction, child-computer interaction, and health research policy. Our Viewpoint integrates conceptual frameworks (eg, Lundy’s model of participation), existing reviews of co-design practices, and emerging evidence on GenAI in mental health. We adopt a life cycle–oriented perspective to examine how youth participation is distributed across stages of research and development, including problem formulation, design, implementation, and evaluation. We identify 3 interrelated drivers of the participation gap. First, conceptual and linguistic fragmentation obscures what participation entails in practice, with terms such as co-design, participatory design, user-centered design, and patient and public involvement used inconsistently across disciplines. Second, youth involvement is uneven across the research life cycle, with participation often concentrated in early ideation or usability testing but largely absent from upstream decision-making and downstream evaluation. Third, institutional barriers—including ethics review processes, consent requirements, funding constraints, and adult-centric research norms—systematically limit meaningful youth partnership. These challenges are amplified in the context of GenAI, where opaque “black box” systems, simulated therapeutic interactions, and rapid deployment cycles introduce distinct risks if youth perspectives are not integrated. We propose a set of minimum expectations to address these gaps, including explicit specification of participatory models, life cycle mapping of youth involvement, reporting of youth influence on decisions, dedicated funding for participation, proportional ethics frameworks, and mechanisms for youth-informed governance of GenAI systems. Closing the participation gap in DYMH research is both an ethical imperative and a practical necessity. Moving beyond aspirational commitments requires embedding youth participation as a standard, resourced, and accountable component of research, design, and governance. In the context of rapidly evolving digital and GenAI technologies, failure to do so risks producing interventions that are scalable but not safe, credible, or responsive to the needs of young people.

Functional impairments associated with mental health conditions are on the rise. Predicting functional outcomes may improve the targeting of preventive interventions. While prognostic models have primarily focused on psychosis, early recognition services require a transdiagnostic approach.