Current Landscape of Mental Health Conversational Agents From a Trauma-Informed Care Lens: Scoping Review

Conversational agents (CAs) are increasingly used in mental health care to enhance access and engagement. However, their safe, ethical, and user-sensitive design remains a challenge. Despite growing attention to trauma-informed approaches in human-computer interaction, there is limited work on how the trauma-informed care (TIC) framework could be applied in the design of mental health CAs and no comprehensive synthesis to date.

Guided by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's TIC framework, this scoping review explored how TIC principles (safety; trustworthiness and transparency; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment, voice, and choice; peer support; and cultural, historical, and gender issues) are currently represented in the design and evaluation of mental health conversational agents (MHCAs) and identified gaps and opportunities to promote more trauma-informed design practices.

Online databases, as well as a secondary survey of citation lists from an initial search, were used to identify English-language journal articles and conference proceedings from 2000 to 2024 that empirically evaluated an independent, web- or app-based, unassisted CA used for mental health and included concepts from TIC.

Our analysis included 38 publications (n=28, 73.7%, published in 2020 or later) covering 28 distinct MHCAs. Most studies used experimental methods (n=23, 60.6%) or user studies (n=11, 28.9%), with samples skewed toward female (men: mean 34.92%, SD 18.64%), young in age (mean 32.52, SD 14.6 y), and predominantly nonclinical (n=29, 76.3%). MHCAs were largely rule-based prototypes. No studies explicitly referenced the TIC framework as a guiding lens for MHCA design or evaluation. A total of 26 studies referenced terminology from TIC core principles but rarely defined them, while all 38 included language that could be linked to one or more principles. Overall, TIC-related concepts appeared most often within intervention design descriptions, qualitative assessments, or as items embedded in questionnaires evaluating broader constructs. Trustworthiness and transparency, safety, empowerment, voice and choice, and collaboration and mutuality were comparatively well addressed, while peer support and cultural, historical, and gender issues were largely absent. Design recommendations, where present, were relatively broad and emphasized secure, customizable, reliable, human-like, and context-sensitive MHCAs that offered multimodal interaction, goal setting and tracking, and transparency.

Studies did not self-identify as using Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's framework for TIC, making it more difficult to identify its elements. The fragmented terms, disciplines, and metrics used make it difficult to draw more systematic conclusions about the current research landscape related to TIC, but our analysis indicates TIC to be a descriptive and potentially unifying framework and provides a starting point for the explicit trauma-informed MHCA research and design.