MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410923084 · doi:10.1002/cpp.70085

Acceptance of Using Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technology for Mental Health Interventions: The Development and Initial Validation of the UTAUT‐AI‐DMHI

2025· article· en· W4410923084 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Békés, Beáta Bőthe, Katie Aafjes‐van Doorn

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyMental healthApplied psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologySample (material)Construct validityReliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsMedical educationStructural equation modelingSocial psychologyExpectancy theoryComputer scienceMedicinePsychiatryMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital health technologies are being increasingly integrated into mental healthcare. This means that patients have different treatment options, and clinicians need to consider different ways of supporting their patients too. The adoption of Digital Mental Health Intervention (DMHI) technologies will be influenced by patients' and clinicians' attitudes towards these technologies. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) is the most commonly used model to examine acceptance of technologies in professional settings, which identifies determinants of behavioural intention to use technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI). We aimed to develop and validate the UTAUT-AI-DMHI measure to assess acceptance various types of digital and AI-based mental health interventions. We assessed the UTAUT-AI-DMHI's psychometric properties in three interventions: teletherapy via videoconferencing, AI chatbot and AI virtual therapist interventions in two samples. Sample 1 included n = 528 patients, n = 155 clinicians and n = 432 participants belonging to both groups; Sample 2 was used to corroborate the results and included a representative US community sample of n = 536. Our results demonstrated adequate construct validity and reliability of the UTAUT factors. In line with previous UTAUT literature, confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the final 17-item (plus one item assessing Behavioural Intention) scale consisted of seven factors: ease of use, social influence, convenience, human connection, perceived privacy risk, hedonic motivation and therapy quality expectations. All factors were positively associated with general attitudes towards AI and intention to use the intervention in the future in each of the three DMHI formats. This implies that the UTAUT-AI-DMHI self-report scale can be applied to assess acceptance of various kinds of digital and AI-based mental health interventions. Further, the UTAUT-AI-DMHI can be administered as a self-report scale for patients, clinicians and the general public and thus allows for a direct comparison of acceptance of different intervention formats.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology & PsychotherapySame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207