Public Perception on Artificial Intelligence–Driven Mental Health Interventions: Survey Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.035 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".