Health Care Professionals’ Views on the Use of Passive Sensing, AI, and Machine Learning in Mental Health Care: Systematic Review With Meta-Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are highly prevalent worldwide. Passive sensing technologies and applied artificial intelligence (AI) methods can provide an innovative means of supporting the management of mental health problems and enhancing the quality of care. However, the views of stakeholders are important in understanding the potential barriers to and facilitators of their implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review, critically appraise, and synthesize qualitative findings relating to the views of mental health care professionals on the use of passive sensing and AI in mental health care. METHODS: A systematic search of qualitative studies was performed using 4 databases. A meta-synthesis approach was used, whereby studies were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach within a critical realist epistemological framework. RESULTS: Overall, 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. The 3 main themes were uses of passive sensing and AI in clinical practice, barriers to and facilitators of use in practice, and consequences for service users. A total of 5 subthemes were identified: barriers, facilitators, empowerment, risk to well-being, and data privacy and protection issues. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians are open-minded about the use of passive sensing and AI in mental health care, important factors to consider are service user well-being, clinician workloads, and therapeutic relationships. Service users and clinicians must be involved in the development of digital technologies and systems to ensure ease of use. The development of, and training in, clear policies and guidelines on the use of passive sensing and AI in mental health care, including risk management and data security procedures, will also be key to facilitating clinician engagement. The means for clinicians and service users to provide feedback on how the use of passive sensing and AI in practice is being received should also be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022331698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=331698.
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 | 0.051 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".