ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
Differing perspectives on artificial intelligence in mental healthcare among patients: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry: Five Decades of Progress and Persistent Translational Challenges.Psychiatric research and clinical practice · 2026Article
- Anxiety and Depression Associated With the Dependent Use of Generative AI in Medical Students: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Ethical aspects of the application of artificial intelligence in psychiatry.Postepy psychiatrii neurologii · 2025Review
- Generative multimodal large language models in mental health care: Applications, opportunities, and challenges.PLOS mental health · 2025Review
- Healthcare Professionals' perspectives on AI-driven decision support in young adult mental health: an analysis through the lens of a shared decision-making framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being developed for mental healthcare, but patients' perspectives on its use are unknown. This study examined differences in attitudes towards AI being used in mental healthcare by history of mental illness, current mental health status, demographic characteristics, and social determinants of health. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of an online sample of 500 adults asking about general perspectives, comfort with AI, specific concerns, explainability and transparency, responsibility and trust, and the importance of relevant bioethical constructs. Results: Multiple vulnerable subgroups perceive potential harms related to AI being used in mental healthcare, place importance on upholding bioethical constructs, and would blame or reduce trust in multiple parties, including mental healthcare professionals, if harm or conflicting assessments resulted from AI. Discussion: Future research examining strategies for ethical AI implementation and supporting clinician AI literacy is critical for optimal patient and clinician interactions with AI in mental healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.