Did general-purpose AI help 662 students? The survey records perceived support, not clinical benefit
In an English school survey, 662 of 24,132 students reported using general-purpose AI for mental-health support in the previous year. Of the smaller groups answering follow-ups, 324 of 580 called it helpful and 410 of 649 still wanted more support; the study cannot show benefit, harm or causation.
The short version
- What happened
- Among 24,132 students in the analysis, 662 (2.7%) reported using a general-purpose AI or large-language-model platform for mental-health support during the previous year.
- Who it affects
- Students may turn to familiar general-purpose tools while waiting for or supplementing other help. Schools and health services need visible human support routes and privacy and crisis information without assuming that a chatbot conversation was either therapy or harm.
- What remains unproven
- Cross-sectional self-report survey
Keep in mind
Cross-sectional self-report survey
Participating schools and colleges rather than a national probability sample
Data collected mainly in February and March 2025
No named-platform or conversation-level data
No clinical outcome, diagnosis or causal comparison
Different and incomplete follow-up denominators
Accepted manuscript may receive copy edits before the final Version of Record
Multi-source analysis · 2 linked sources. Primary analysed source date: 27 October 2026. Earliest linked supporting source: 19 February 2026.
Keep following the evidence
Join The Impact Brief founding list for selected AI reports, their effect on people and the evidence limits. Read a sample first.
Read the full report · 4 min The evidence, methods, implications and limitations
AI use was uncommon in the full sample, but concentrated among students with greater needs
A peer-reviewed OxWell analysis found that 662 of 24,132 students in England—2.7%—reported using a general-purpose AI or large-language-model platform for mental-health support in the previous year. Most users, 610 of 662, had also accessed another form of support. The authors report that both AI use and desire for more help were concentrated among minoritised students and those facing greater psychosocial vulnerability, making the result a signal about support-seeking rather than evidence that AI replaced human care.
The analytic sample came from the 2025 OxWell school survey. The wider wave collected 35,244 responses from 95 participating schools and further-education colleges, mainly in Liverpool and Oxfordshire and mainly between 24 February and 28 March 2025. The paper's 24,132 denominator therefore should not be read as a random or nationally representative sample of every adolescent in England.[1][2]
The follow-up answers describe experience, not treatment effectiveness
Among the 580 AI users who answered the helpfulness question, 324—55.9%—rated the support helpful. A separate 649 users answered whether they wanted additional support; 410—63.2%—said yes. Keeping those denominators separate matters: 82 users did not supply a helpfulness rating and 13 did not answer the additional-support item.
The survey did not name the platforms used, review chat transcripts, verify frequency or distinguish advice, companionship and crisis use. It also did not measure symptom change, clinical safety, misinformation or later access to care. Self-reported helpfulness may be meaningful to a student, but it is not evidence that a system delivered effective or safe mental-health treatment.[1]
The distinction that matters
What the five denominators actually measure
Each percentage answers a different survey question; none is a clinical outcome.
All analysed students
662 of 24,132 reported past-year AI support use
2.7% self-reported prevalence in the participating sample
Helpfulness respondents
324 of 580 called the AI support helpful
Perceived helpfulness, not measured symptom improvement
Additional-support respondents
410 of 649 wanted more support
Substantial unmet need among users who answered
The practical question is how services respond to unmet need
For schools, clinicians and families, the strongest finding is that many AI users were already seeking help elsewhere and still wanted more. That argues for clear routes to qualified human support, privacy explanations and crisis guidance wherever students may encounter general-purpose chatbots. It does not establish that banning or encouraging these tools would improve outcomes.
Confidence would increase with representative longitudinal research linking platform type and conversation purpose to symptom change, errors, safety events and successful connection to care. The paper was funded through the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration and an NIHR development award; one author disclosed an Oxford-managed research advisory consultancy with the non-profit Girl Effect, while the others declared no competing interests.[1][2]
Watch the background, then check the evidence
Illustrative photo · not a video frame
The Royal Society · 44 min 28 sec · Background explainer
Is this the AI future we want? | The Royal Society
YouTube loads only when you choose; playback starts when you press play.
A Royal Society discussion with Madhumita Murgia and biomedical engineer Alison Noble on AI’s potential in healthcare, science and culture, recorded at the 30 June 2026 event.
Evidence check: A discussion of opportunities and risks, including future possibilities. It is not evidence that every application described is available or clinically proven.
Published 2026-07-01. Source checked 14 October 2026. Check captions on the publisher’s video page.
Check the healthcare evidencePhoto: Daniel Sone / National Cancer Institute / Unsplash · Licence
Continue the story
Read next
Continue exploring adolescent mental health: compare the finding and its evidence limits.
Four chatbots covered less guidance when simulated teenage depression was severe
A peer-reviewed audit used 1,600 scripted conversations to test ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-4, Claude 4.5 and Gemini 2.5. Coverage was stronger for anxiety than depression and for moderate than severe presentations—but the benchmark did not test treatment, safety or real teenagers.
Read the next reportExplore the full source and evidence record
What this means for people
- Students may turn to familiar general-purpose tools while waiting for or supplementing other help. Schools and health services need visible human support routes and privacy and crisis information without assuming that a chatbot conversation was either therapy or harm.
Global context
The study concerns students in participating English schools and colleges. Access to school counselling, health services, digital platforms and safeguarding differs across countries, so neither the 2.7% use estimate nor the support gap should be transferred directly to other populations.
What the evidence does not yet show
- Cross-sectional self-report survey
- Participating schools and colleges rather than a national probability sample
- Data collected mainly in February and March 2025
- No named-platform or conversation-level data
- No clinical outcome, diagnosis or causal comparison
- Different and incomplete follow-up denominators
- Accepted manuscript may receive copy edits before the final Version of Record
What to watch next
- Longitudinal symptom and care-access outcomes
- Platform- and purpose-specific use
- Conversation-level safety and privacy audits
- Representative national sampling
- Whether students reach qualified human support
- Final Version of Record and independent replication
Living evidence record
Impact record IAI-0TZ5J75
Evidence stage
Studied
Confidence
Supported
Reporting basis
Multi-source analysis
Independent or research support
Present
Record status
Monitoring
Last checked
28 October 2026
Source trail
2 direct sources across 2 source types.
People impact
Documented in this record.
Uncertainty
Limits and next checks are explicit.
Stages describe the evidence available—not whether a technology is good or bad. See the public method.
Evidence trail
Sources used for this report
Links checked 28 October 2026
Research question, topics and regions
How often students in participating English schools reported using general-purpose AI for mental-health support, how they rated it, and whether they still wanted additional support
Topics: Adolescent mental health · General-purpose AI · Schools · Support seeking · Digital health · Unmet need
Regions: England · United Kingdom · Europe
This report is labelled multi-source analysis. We summarise and analyse source material in our own words; company statements remain attributed claims until independently supported. Translated summaries preserve the meaning of the original source and link back to it. Read our editorial standards.
Reader commentary
What does this mean where you are?
Tell us what you have seen at work, in your community or in everyday life. A question is welcome too. No account is needed; we review notes before publishing them.
Explore commentary across the portal →Published reader notes
0No published reader notes yet. You can start the evidence-led discussion above.
Prefer a private correction or response? Contact the newsroom.