MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403330054 · doi:10.2196/60589

Use of AI in Mental Health Care: Community and Mental Health Professionals Survey

2024· article· en· W4403330054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shane Cross, Imogen Bell, Jennifer Nicholas, Lee Valentine, Shaminka N. Mangelsdorf, Simon Baker, Nickolai Titov, Mario Álvarez‐Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisDemographicsDescriptive statisticsHealth careMedicinePsychologyMedical educationPsychiatryQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly recognized as a potential solution to address mental health service challenges by automating tasks and providing new forms of support. Objective: This study is the first in a series which aims to estimate the current rates of AI technology use as well as perceived benefits, harms, and risks experienced by community members (CMs) and mental health professionals (MHPs). Methods: This study involved 2 web-based surveys conducted in Australia. The surveys collected data on demographics, technology comfort, attitudes toward AI, specific AI use cases, and experiences of benefits and harms from AI use. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and thematic analysis of open-ended responses were conducted. Results: The final sample consisted of 107 CMs and 86 MHPs. General attitudes toward AI varied, with CMs reporting neutral and MHPs reporting more positive attitudes. Regarding AI usage, 28% (30/108) of CMs used AI, primarily for quick support (18/30, 60%) and as a personal therapist (14/30, 47%). Among MHPs, 43% (37/86) used AI; mostly for research (24/37, 65%) and report writing (20/37, 54%). While the majority found AI to be generally beneficial (23/30, 77% of CMs and 34/37, 92% of MHPs), specific harms and concerns were experienced by 47% (14/30) of CMs and 51% (19/37) of MHPs. There was an equal mix of positive and negative sentiment toward the future of AI in mental health care in open feedback. Conclusions: Commercial AI tools are increasingly being used by CMs and MHPs. Respondents believe AI will offer future advantages for mental health care in terms of accessibility, cost reduction, personalization, and work efficiency. However, they were equally concerned about reducing human connection, ethics, privacy and regulation, medical errors, potential for misuse, and data security. Despite the immense potential, integration into mental health systems must be approached with caution, addressing legal and ethical concerns while developing safeguards to mitigate potential harms. Future surveys are planned to track use and acceptability of AI and associated issues over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.258
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207