JMIR Mental Health

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.

Psychotic disorder represents a leading cause of disability worldwide, and relapse in psychosis is common. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized as a method that could aid clinical monitoring for individuals experiencing psychosis.

Digital meditation-based interventions (MBIs) reach vast global audiences with millions of active users, yet concerns persist about the frequency and nature of adverse experiences (ie, AExs) occurring during meditation training. Some researchers have argued that AExs are substantially underdetected and reflect iatrogenic harm caused by meditation (ie, adverse effects [AEfs]). Others contend that these experiences largely reflect common stressors that would be experienced without meditation. These competing perspectives underscore the need for further research, particularly in the context of digital MBIs, the most widely used form of meditation training.

Physical activity (PA) is a promising prevention approach for supporting mental health and enhancing social inclusion among postsecondary students. However, it is unclear whether similar outcomes are realized when PA programming is delivered in-person versus virtually.

The use of large language models (LLMs)–powered chatbots has reshaped how people seek information and advice, including for emotional and mental health support. While LLMs can offer scalable support, their ability to safely detect and respond to acute mental health crises—including suicidal ideation, self-harm, and violent thoughts—remains poorly understood. Progress is hampered by the absence of unified mental health crisis taxonomies, annotated benchmarks, and empirical evaluations grounded in clinical best practices.

Ambulatory assessment and active and passive monitoring all offer a real-time, flexible approach to assessing mood and behavior in mood disorders. Despite their potential, concerns remain regarding the performance, usability, adherence, and potential safety of these tools.

Self-harm is the strongest risk factor for suicide and an important outcome for mental health care. Although prevalent in clinical populations, it is often imprecisely captured in routinely collected clinical data, where it is often recorded and stored as unstructured free text. Contemporary language models, such as GPT (OpenAI) and Gemini (Google), can analyze free-text clinical notes, but such models may violate data governance of processing sensitive patient data.

Digital cognitive assessments are increasingly used in large-scale studies to assess brain health, offering scalable, standardized, and self-directed testing solutions. Cognitive function remains a concern for people with HIV despite antiretroviral therapy. The BRACE (BrainBaseline Assessment of Cognition and Everyday Functioning) is a validated tablet-based screener for cognition in people with HIV. Preliminary pilot norms were established in a small sample (n=144), but full regression-based normative data have not yet been developed. Consequently, HIV serostatus differences based on standardized BRACE scores and cognitive correlates have not been systematically examined.