The Adoption of AI in Mental Health Care–Perspectives From Mental Health Professionals: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the mental health care environment. AI tools are increasingly accessed by clients and service users. Mental health professionals must be prepared not only to use AI but also to have conversations about it when delivering care. Despite the potential for AI to enable more efficient and reliable and higher-quality care delivery, there is a persistent gap among mental health professionals in the adoption of AI. OBJECTIVE: A needs assessment was conducted among mental health professionals to (1) understand the learning needs of the workforce and their attitudes toward AI and (2) inform the development of AI education curricula and knowledge translation products. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was taken to explore the needs of mental health professionals regarding their adoption of AI through semistructured interviews. To reach maximum variation sampling, mental health professionals (eg, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, educators, scientists, and social workers) in various settings across Ontario (eg, urban and rural, public and private sector, and clinical and research) were recruited. RESULTS: A total of 20 individuals were recruited. Participants included practitioners (9/20, 45% social workers and 1/20, 5% mental health nurses), educator scientists (5/20, 25% with dual roles as professors/lecturers and researchers), and practitioner scientists (3/20, 15% with dual roles as researchers and psychiatrists and 2/20, 10% with dual roles as researchers and mental health nurses). Four major themes emerged: (1) fostering practice change and building self-efficacy to integrate AI into patient care; (2) promoting system-level change to accelerate the adoption of AI in mental health; (3) addressing the importance of organizational readiness as a catalyst for AI adoption; and (4) ensuring that mental health professionals have the education, knowledge, and skills to harness AI in optimizing patient care. CONCLUSIONS: AI technologies are starting to emerge in mental health care. Although many digital tools, web-based services, and mobile apps are designed using AI algorithms, mental health professionals have generally been slower in the adoption of AI. As indicated by this study's findings, the implications are 3-fold. At the individual level, digital professionals must see the value in digitally compassionate tools that retain a humanistic approach to care. For mental health professionals, resistance toward AI adoption must be acknowledged through educational initiatives to raise awareness about the relevance, practicality, and benefits of AI. At the organizational level, digital professionals and leaders must collaborate on governance and funding structures to promote employee buy-in. At the societal level, digital and mental health professionals should collaborate in the creation of formal AI training programs specific to mental health to address knowledge gaps. This study promotes the design of relevant and sustainable education programs to support the adoption of AI within the mental health care sphere.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".