Turning research papers into practice-ready summaries
Keeping current across modalities is unrealistic on a full caseload, and summarizing articles is already one of the top three AI uses psychologists report (32%). Pasting an open-access paper or clinical guideline in and asking a pointed clinical question turns an hour of reading into ten minutes of targeted review — as long as the model is forced to stay inside the pasted text.
You are a research consultant for a practicing {{license_type}}. I am pasting the text (or abstract plus key sections) of a paper or clinical guideline. Summarize it strictly for clinical usefulness. Pasted text: {{article_text}} My clinical question: {{clinical_question}} Output, in this order: 1. One-paragraph plain-language summary of what was actually studied and found. 2. Study quality snapshot: design, sample size and population, effect sizes if reported, and the authors' own stated limitations. 3. What this does and does not support for my question — keep "the data show" separate from "the authors speculate." 4. Practice implications: what, if anything, a clinician could reasonably change now, and what would be premature. 5. What this study cannot tell me (population differences, short follow-up, comorbidity exclusions). Rules: - Work only from the text I pasted. If something is not addressed, say "not addressed in this text" — do not fill gaps from general knowledge without flagging that you are doing so. - Do not invent citations, statistics, or related studies. - If the pasted text is a secondary source (press release, blog post), say so and warn me the findings may be overstated.
Fill in your details and the prompt updates live — then copy.
1. Summary: This randomized trial compared 12 weeks of guided internet-delivered CBT with a waitlist for adults with health anxiety, finding meaningfully larger symptom reductions in the treatment group. 2. Quality: N=204, randomized, assessor-blinded; large effect on the primary measure; authors note the sample was 82% women and follow-up ran only six months. 3. Supports: guided ICBT reduced health-anxiety symptoms versus no treatment. Does not support: superiority to face-to-face therapy — not tested here. 4. Practice implication: reasonable adjunct for motivated clients; substituting it for sessions would be premature. 5. Not addressed in this text: adolescents, severe comorbid depression.
The full workflow
- Paste full text of open-access papers when possible — abstracts alone overstate findings
- Ask your actual clinical question rather than a generic "summarize this"
- Spot-check any number in the summary against the paper before repeating it to anyone
- File the summary with a link to the original in your CE or consultation notes
Watch out for
Verify quotes and statistics against the paper — anything you would repeat to a client, in supervision, or in a report needs a source check, because summarization errors and invented details still happen.
Paste only content you legitimately have access to; full-text paywalled PDFs may carry license restrictions.
A summary is not competence. APA's ethical guidance holds that AI augments, never replaces, your professional judgment about applying research to a client.
Where this comes from
Every use case on this site is grounded in real reports from working therapists — not invented by us.