ArticleBMC psychology2025
Barriers and enablers for generative artificial intelligence in clinical psychology: a qualitative study based on the COM-B and theoretical domains framework (TDF) models.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Between Awareness and Readiness: Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Among Indonesian Mental Health Professionals.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Psychological Counseling: A Narrative Review and Governance Framework.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the perceptions of care psychologists regarding the adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in therapeutic practice. As AI continues to be integrated into various sectors, including healthcare, understanding how psychologists perceive its implementation in therapeutic settings is essential. The study explores the factors that act as barriers and facilitators to GenAI adoption and examines their impact on the future of therapeutic interventions.
methodsA qualitative study design was adopted, involving semistructured, in-depth interviews with 14 private care psychologists in Spanish cities. The study focused on urban private care settings. The interviews were designed based on TDF domains to identify barriers and enablers. All sessions were recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using a content approach, with the identified topics mapped onto the TDF and COM-B components.
resultsEighteen factors were identified that influenced the decision to accept or reject GenAI in therapy, with 12 factors acting as barriers and 6 acting as facilitators. These factors are classified within the TDF domains. Highlighted barriers included a lack of understanding of AI and concerns about the confidentiality and privacy of information shared in therapy, while the main facilitators were training in AI skills and the possibility of having a digital assistant.
conclusionThis study reveals the need for greater understanding of training in AI among psychologists. The acceptance of AI varies depending on the training and experience of professionals; some show concern for the future of their profession, while others highlight that it is an opportunity to improve interventions. Information privacy concerns are significant and have been identified as key factors for enabling AI deployment.
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.