Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39293056›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2024

Patient Perspectives on AI for Mental Health Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Natalie Benda, Pooja Desai, Zayan Reza, Anna Zheng, Shiveen Kumar, Sarah Harkins, Alison Hermann, Yiye Zhang, Rochelle Joly, Jessica Kim and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Developing a Typology of Women's Attitudes Towards AI Use in the BreastScreen Programme-A Qualitative Study With BreastScreen Victoria Clients.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Natalie BendaSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3256-0243
Pooja DesaiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4510-4896
Zayan RezaMailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-3681-799X
Anna ZhengStuyvestant High School, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-6308-8620
Shiveen KumarCollege of Agriculture and Life Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-7292-927X
Sarah HarkinsSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2528-7186
Alison HermannDepartment of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7008-7602
Yiye ZhangDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3494-2699
Rochelle JolyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1551-2434
Jessica KimDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-6389-3451
Jyotishman PathakDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4856-410X
Meghan Reading TurchioeSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6264-6320

Funding

Risk modeling and shared decision making for postpartum depressionR41MH124581 · NIMH · IRIS OB HEALTH INC. · PI LASKOFF, MICHAEL B., PATHAK, JYOTISHMAN · 2021 to 2022
$1.0M
NIMH NIH HHS R41 MH124581
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) to health and health care is rapidly increasing. Several studies have assessed the attitudes of health professionals, but far fewer studies have explored the perspectives of patients or the general public. Studies investigating patient perspectives have focused on somatic issues, including those related to radiology, perinatal health, and general applications. Patient feedback has been elicited in the development of specific mental health care solutions, but broader perspectives toward AI for mental health care have been underexplored.

objectiveThis study aims to understand public perceptions regarding potential benefits of AI, concerns about AI, comfort with AI accomplishing various tasks, and values related to AI, all pertaining to mental health care.

methodsWe conducted a 1-time cross-sectional survey with a nationally representative sample of 500 US-based adults. Participants provided structured responses on their perceived benefits, concerns, comfort, and values regarding AI for mental health care. They could also add free-text responses to elaborate on their concerns and values.

resultsA plurality of participants (245/497, 49.3%) believed AI may be beneficial for mental health care, but this perspective differed based on sociodemographic variables (all P<.05). Specifically, Black participants (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.05) and those with lower health literacy (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.78) perceived AI to be more beneficial, and women (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) perceived AI to be less beneficial. Participants endorsed concerns about accuracy, possible unintended consequences such as misdiagnosis, the confidentiality of their information, and the loss of connection with their health professional when AI is used for mental health care. A majority of participants (80.4%, 402/500) valued being able to understand individual factors driving their risk, confidentiality, and autonomy as it pertained to the use of AI for their mental health. When asked who was responsible for the misdiagnosis of mental health conditions using AI, 81.6% (408/500) of participants found the health professional to be responsible. Qualitative results revealed similar concerns related to the accuracy of AI and how its use may impact the confidentiality of patients' information.

conclusionsFuture work involving the use of AI for mental health care should investigate strategies for conveying the level of AI's accuracy, factors that drive patients' mental health risks, and how data are used confidentially so that patients can determine with their health professionals when AI may be beneficial. It will also be important in a mental health care context to ensure the patient-health professional relationship is preserved when AI is used.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultAIapplicationapplicationsartificial intelligenceautonomyBlackcodingcomputingconfidentialitydigital mental healthhealth carehealth professionalsmachine learningmental healthmobile phonepatient-healthpatient perspectivespatientsperinatal healthprofessional relationshippublic surveyradiologyrisksomatic issues

Identifiers

PMID39293056
PMCPMC11447436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.