When Retrieval Helps: Selective Retrieval for Single-Turn Mental-Health QA

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these risks by grounding responses in an explicitly maintained corpus, but end-to-end performance depends critically on retrieval configuration and on evaluation beyond multiple-choice formats. We extend PubHealthBench, a question answering (QA) benchmark of 7,929 questions derived from UK Government public health guidance, into a retrieval-augmented setting and systematically evaluate retrieval and generation choices. We compare dense, sparse, and hybrid retrieval across multiple embedding models and corpus variants, and show that hybrid retrieval consistently improves recall and ranking quality, with chunk length and topic interacting with ranking performance. Providing retrieved context substantially increases multiple-choice accuracy across a diverse set of LLMs, enabling smaller open-weight models to match or outperform larger models used without retrieval, with gains primarily driven by retrieval quality and careful context selection. To assess realistic free-form answering, we introduce a rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge covering faithfulness, completeness, clarity, and factual consistency, and validate it against dual human annotations. Judge-human agreement is strongest for faithfulness and completeness, while factual consistency and clarity are less reliably reproduced, motivating caution when interpreting those dimensions at scale. Overall, our results highlight retrieval as a primary lever for reliable public health QA and provide practical guidance for building and evaluating RAG systems grounded in official guidance.

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) offer scalable support, but ensuring they accurately detect users' intent during volatile situations can be challenging. Pure parametric Large Language models (LLMs) do not contain specific safety critical architecture, and can miss critical cues, or hallucinate, undermining reliability. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), which supplements an LLM with retrieved context, could enhance intent detection during volatile situations. Commercially available DMHIs typically combine multiple independent safety layers like rule-based filters, symbolic escalation protocols, and neural classification. The incremental contribution of any single layer, however, remains unquantified. This paper evaluates six LLM models within a DMHI called Wysa, via a controlled comparison of RAG-enabled versus RAG-disabled modes. Anonymized real and synthetic user-chatbot exchanges were annotated by a qualified clinical team against multi-class intent categories (e.g. self-harm, abuse, panic). The study computed classification accuracy, recall, precision and F1 scores against ground truth labels and tested differences for statistical significance. Performance was also examined by risk category and inter-model agreement. While RAG caused a rise in false alarms, the trade-off is consistent with safety-critical design principles that prioritize sensitivity, where flagged cases are routed to additional review rather than acted on directly. Overall, these findings support RAG as a promising approach to improve the accuracy, consistency and safety of LLM-driven DMHIs. Keywords: Digital Mental Health Intervention, Large Language Model, Retrieval Augmented Generation, Accuracy, Recall, Precision

Medical question answering is a high-stakes setting where factual errors can have serious consequences. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely viewed as a promising solution, and prior work has reported substantial gains for large medical QA models. We revisit this assumption across a broad range of open-weight instruction-tuned models spanning 7B to 72B parameters. Across five models, ten biomedical QA datasets, four retrieval methods, and four retrieval corpora, we find that retrieval yields only small and inconsistent improvements over a no-retrieval baseline, typically within 1-2 points. In contrast, the choice of backbone model has a much larger effect than the choice of retriever or corpus, and expert and layman retrieval sources perform similarly in most settings. These results suggest that the main bottleneck is not retrieval quality alone, but the model's limited ability to use retrieved evidence effectively.