Mapping Technologies, Support Functions, Evaluation Outcomes, and Safety Governance Related to Conversational AI Agents for Psychological Support of Patients With Cancer: Scoping Review
- 1Department of Hematology Third Xiangya Hospital Central South University Changsha, Hunan China
- 2Nursing Department Third Xiangya Hospital Central South University Changsha, Hunan China
Abstract
Background: Psychological distress and unmet psychosocial needs are common across the cancer continuum. Conversational AI agents may offer scalable support, but their technologies, support functions, evaluation approaches, and safety governance remain fragmented.
Objective: This review aimed to map the technologies, psychological support functions, evaluation outcomes, and safety governance of conversational AI used by patients with cancer and cancer survivors.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Thirteen databases and additional registers were searched through May 5, 2026. Eligible reports examined conversational agents in real or simulated patient-facing oncology contexts with explicit psychological or psychosocial relevance. We summarized system forms and support functions by project and other characteristics by report. No formal critical appraisal was undertaken.
Results: We included 24 reports representing 25 study units and 23 underlying projects. Large language model (LLM) or generative AI systems accounted for 39.1% (9/23) of projects. Information or education (23/23, 100%) and symptom or self-management support (n=20, 87%) were the most frequently mapped functions, although these counts included delivered, planned, simulated, co-designed, and participant-reported functions. Structured psychological or behavioral components were delivered in 21.7% (5/23) of projects. An explicit theoretical or conceptual framework was reported in 25% (6/24) of reports. Reports or plans to assess acceptability or user experience (17/24, 70.8%) and engagement (13/24, 54.2%) were more common than reports or plans to assess psychosocial clinical outcomes (8/24, 33.3%) or safety and adverse events (4/24, 16.7%). Human or expert oversight was reported in 62.5% (15/24) of reports, crisis escalation or referral in 33.3% (8/24) of reports, and user-facing AI identity disclosure in 12.5% (3/24) of reports.
Conclusions: Conversational AI research in psycho-oncology spans heterogeneous technologies and stages of development. Clinical and safety evaluation, theoretical foundations, population representation, and oversight responsibilities remain incompletely reported. These findings represent a map of reporting patterns and do not establish effectiveness or safety. Future studies should evaluate psychosocial benefit and safety prospectively and define professional oversight and referral responsibilities.
Trial Registration: OSF Registries UM65W; https://osf.io/um65w
Related
- Psychological correlates of dependence on generative and conversational AI: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Immersive Technologies in Sport Spectatorship: A Scoping Review of Psychological Responses and Behavioral Intentions
- Investigating the Role of Good Governance Components in Distinguishing Levels of Possible Scenarios for the Adoption of Water Management Technologies in Isfahan Province
- Unpacking the institutional and psychological pathways of community empowerment in cultural heritage governance
- Assessing User-Subjective Experience with Conversational Agents for Behavioral and Mental Health Interventions: Design and Psychometric Evaluation of CUE-Chat
BibTeX
@article{shen2026mapping,
title = {{Mapping Technologies, Support Functions, Evaluation Outcomes, and Safety Governance Related to Conversational AI Agents for Psychological Support of Patients With Cancer: Scoping Review}},
author = {Zhiying Shen and Shuangjiao Shi and Lian Mao and Chengyuan Li and Jianfei Xie},
journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.2196/105599},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/105599},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Mapping Technologies, Support Functions, Evaluation Outcomes, and Safety Governance Related to Conversational AI Agents for Psychological Support of Patients With Cancer: Scoping Review
AU - Zhiying Shen
AU - Shuangjiao Shi
AU - Lian Mao
AU - Chengyuan Li
AU - Jianfei Xie
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/19
JO - Journal of Medical Internet Research
DO - 10.2196/105599
UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/105599
AB - Background: Psychological distress and unmet psychosocial needs are common across the cancer continuum. Conversational AI agents may offer scalable support, but their technologies, support functions, evaluation approaches, and safety governance remain fragmented. Objective: This review aimed to map the technologies, psychological support functions, evaluation outcomes, and safety governance of conversational AI used by patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Thirteen databases and additional registers were searched through May 5, 2026. Eligible reports examined conversational agents in real or simulated patient-facing oncology contexts with explicit psychological or psychosocial relevance. We summarized system forms and support functions by project and other characteristics by report. No formal critical appraisal was undertaken. Results: We included 24 reports representing 25 study units and 23 underlying projects. Large language model (LLM) or generative AI systems accounted for 39.1% (9/23) of projects. Information or education (23/23, 100%) and symptom or self-management support (n=20, 87%) were the most frequently mapped functions, although these counts included delivered, planned, simulated, co-designed, and participant-reported functions. Structured psychological or behavioral components were delivered in 21.7% (5/23) of projects. An explicit theoretical or conceptual framework was reported in 25% (6/24) of reports. Reports or plans to assess acceptability or user experience (17/24, 70.8%) and engagement (13/24, 54.2%) were more common than reports or plans to assess psychosocial clinical outcomes (8/24, 33.3%) or safety and adverse events (4/24, 16.7%). Human or expert oversight was reported in 62.5% (15/24) of reports, crisis escalation or referral in 33.3% (8/24) of reports, and user-facing AI identity disclosure in 12.5% (3/24) of reports. Conclusions: Conversational AI research in psycho-oncology spans heterogeneous technologies and stages of development. Clinical and safety evaluation, theoretical foundations, population representation, and oversight responsibilities remain incompletely reported. These findings represent a map of reporting patterns and do not establish effectiveness or safety. Future studies should evaluate psychosocial benefit and safety prospectively and define professional oversight and referral responsibilities. Trial Registration: OSF Registries UM65W; https://osf.io/um65w
SN - 1439-4456
SN - 1438-8871
ER -