Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics
Date Submitted: Mar 29, 2026
Date Accepted: Sep 18, 2026
Support-Seeking After Market Withdrawal of a Purpose-Built AI Wellbeing Tool (Ash): Cross-Sectional Survey
ABSTRACT
Background:
Purpose-built AI wellbeing tools—designed with clinical safeguards for everyday emotional difficulties such as stress, grief, and relationship conflict—represent a growing category of digital mental health support. When regulatory actions disrupt access to such tools, users must navigate alternatives on their own; however, no empirical data exist on where they actually turn.
Objective:
This study examines the real-world impact of interrupted access to a purpose-built AI wellbeing tool on help-seeking behavior.
Methods:
Cross-sectional survey of 393 UK-based adults who had used a purpose-built AI wellbeing application within 90 days prior to its withdrawal from the UK market in January 2026. The survey assessed self-reported sources of emotional and mental health support following withdrawal, use of general-purpose AI tools, perceived changes in access to support, and subjective wellbeing. Free-text responses (n = 272) were analyzed using a hybrid thematic approach.
Results:
The most common primary sources of mental health support since losing access to a purpose-built AI wellbeing application were general-purpose AI tools (27%) and no support at all (26%). By contrast, just 13% transitioned to professional care. Among the 157 respondents reporting use of general-purpose AI for mental health support, the dominant motivations were instant access (78%) and cost (74%). Sixty percent reported worse access to support, rising to 81% among those who had not sought support since. Qualitative themes highlighted the perceived inferiority of general-purpose AI for mental health, distress at service loss, and valued features of purpose-built AI design.
Conclusions:
Removing a purpose-built AI wellbeing tool did not redirect users toward human-led mental health services; most turned to general-purpose AI or stopped seeking support entirely. Regulatory frameworks should account for real-world substitution effects when evaluating the risks and benefits of purpose-built AI tools for general wellness.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.