# Inform, Coach, Relate, Listen: Auditing LLM Caregiving Support Roles

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29473 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29473/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.11462/) (2020)
- [Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.01282/) (2020)
- [Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05374/) (2023)
- [In-Context Impersonation Reveals Large Language Models' Strengths and Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14930/) (2023)
- [MediQ: Question-Asking LLMs and a Benchmark for Reliable Interactive Clinical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00922/) (2024)
- [A Question-Entailment Approach to Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.08079/) (2019)
- [SG-Bench: Evaluating LLM Safety Generalization Across Diverse Tasks and Prompt Types](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21965/) (2024)
- [Customizing Emotional Support: How Do Individuals Construct and Interact With LLM-Powered Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12943/) (2025)
- [Mapping Caregiver Needs to AI Chatbot Design: Strengths and Gaps in Mental Health Support for Alzheimer's and Dementia Caregivers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15047/) (2025)
- [RubRIX: Rubric-Driven Risk Mitigation in Caregiver-AI Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.13235/) (2026)
- [Balancing Caregiving and Self-Care: Exploring Mental Health Needs of Alzheimer's and Dementia Caregivers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14196/) (2025)
- [Answer Bubbles: Information Exposure in AI-Mediated Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16138/) (2026)
- [ClinicBot: A Guideline-Grounded Clinical Chatbot with Prioritized Evidence RAG and Verifiable Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00846/) (2026)
- [What Users Cannot See: Evaluating LLM Emotional Support Beyond User Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.21569/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [A Taxonomy of Mental Health and Technology Needs for Alzheimer's and Dementia Caregivers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19247/) (2026)
- [When AI Says "I have been in similar situations": Synthetic Lived Experience in Peer-Like Caregiver Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.18057/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language models are increasingly being deployed for conversational support in informal caregiving contexts, where interactions often extend beyond information-seeking: caregivers seek emotional reassurance, guidance, and help, while navigating uncertain, relationally complex care decisions. Yet most safety evaluations assess model behavior under generic prompts, leaving a critical question unexamined: does a model's safety profile change with its support role? We study this by operationalizing four expert-reviewed support roles grounded in social support theory: Inform, Coach, Relate, and Listen, and comparing them against two baseline controls: a basic prompting condition and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) condition. We evaluate across three language models (GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and MedGemma-1.5-4b-it) on 5,000 real-world queries from online Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) communities. We find that the LLM's support role systematically shapes both the prevalence and composition of interactional risks. Furthermore, a human evaluation study reveals a perceived quality--safety tension: more directive, information-oriented roles are rated as more helpful and trustworthy despite exhibiting elevated interactional risk profiles. We release ~90,000 support role-conditioned model responses with risk annotations as an ecologically grounded resource for research on safer LLM-mediated conversational support.