Public Perception on Artificial Intelligence–Driven Mental Health Interventions: Survey Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly important in health care, generating both curiosity and concern. With a doctor-patient ratio of 1:834 in India, AI has the potential to alleviate a significant health care burden. Public perception plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes that can facilitate the adoption of new technologies. Similarly, the acceptance of AI-driven mental health interventions is crucial in determining their effectiveness and widespread adoption. Therefore, it is essential to study public perceptions and usage of existing AI-driven mental health interventions by exploring user experiences and opinions on their future applicability, particularly in comparison to traditional, human-based interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the use, perception, and acceptance of AI-driven mental health interventions in comparison to traditional, human-based interventions. METHODS: A total of 466 adult participants from India voluntarily completed a 30-item web-based survey on the use and perception of AI-based mental health interventions between November and December 2023. RESULTS: Of the 466 respondents, only 163 (35%) had ever consulted a mental health professional. Additionally, 305 (65.5%) reported very low knowledge of AI-driven interventions. In terms of trust, 247 (53%) expressed a moderate level of Trust in AI-Driven Mental Health Interventions, while only 24 (5.2%) reported a high level of trust. By contrast, 114 (24.5%) reported high trust and 309 (66.3%) reported moderate Trust in Human-Based Mental Health Interventions; 242 (51.9%) participants reported a high level of stigma associated with using human-based interventions, compared with only 50 (10.7%) who expressed concerns about stigma related to AI-driven interventions. Additionally, 162 (34.8%) expressed a positive outlook toward the future use and social acceptance of AI-based interventions. The majority of respondents indicated that AI could be a useful option for providing general mental health tips and conducting initial assessments. The key benefits of AI highlighted by participants were accessibility, cost-effectiveness, 24/7 availability, and reduced stigma. Major concerns included data privacy, security, the lack of human touch, and the potential for misdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is a general lack of awareness about AI-driven mental health interventions. However, AI shows potential as a viable option for prevention, primary assessment, and ongoing mental health maintenance. Currently, people tend to trust traditional mental health practices more. Stigma remains a significant barrier to accessing traditional mental health services. Currently, the human touch remains an indispensable aspect of human-based mental health care, one that AI cannot replace. However, integrating AI with human mental health professionals is seen as a compelling model. AI is positively perceived in terms of accessibility, availability, and destigmatization. Knowledge and perceived trustworthiness are key factors influencing the acceptance and effectiveness of AI-driven mental health interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,035 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».