Digital Technology in Psychiatry: Survey Study of Clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital technology has the potential to transform psychiatry, but its adoption has been limited. The proliferation of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the urgency of optimizing technology for clinical practice. Understanding clinician attitudes and preferences is crucial to effective implementation and patient benefit. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to elicit clinician perspectives on emerging digital technology. METHODS: Clinicians in a large psychiatry department (inpatient and outpatient) were invited to complete a web-based survey about their attitudes toward digital technology in practice, focusing on implementation, clinical benefits, and expectations about patients' attitudes. The survey consisted of 23 questions that could be answered on either a 3-point or 5-point Likert scale. We report the frequencies and percentages of responses. RESULTS: In total, 139 clinicians completed the survey-they represent a variety of years of experience, credentials, and diagnostic subspecialties (response rate 69.5%). Overall, 83.4% (n=116) of them stated that digital data could improve their practice, and 23.0% (n=32) of responders reported that they had viewed patients' profiles on social media. Among anticipated benefits, clinicians rated symptom self-tracking (n=101, 72.7%) as well as clinical intervention support (n=90, 64.7%) as most promising. Among anticipated challenges, clinicians mostly expressed concerns over greater time demand (n=123, 88.5%) and whether digital data would be actionable (n=107, 77%). Furthermore, 95.0% (n=132) of clinicians expected their patients to share digital data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, clinicians reported a positive attitude toward the use of digital data to not only improve patient outcomes but also highlight significant barriers that implementation would need to overcome. Although clinicians' self-reported attitudes about digital technology may not necessarily translate into behavior, our results suggest that technologies that reduce clinician burden and are easily interpretable have the greatest likelihood of uptake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".