ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Investigating How Clinicians Form Trust in an AI-Based Mental Health Model: Qualitative Case Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Agents Are Coming: 5-Stage Taxonomy of Language-Based AI Systems for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Counseling.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- The Design-Driven Innovation Path of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Healthcare: Theory, Practice, and Future Prospects.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Extrinsic Trust as a Contractual Framework for Accountable AI in Health Care: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Implementing computer‑aided detection for TB active case finding: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability in Tondo, Manila.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Trust in artificial intelligence (AI) remains a critical barrier to the adoption of AI in mental health care. This study explores the formation of trust in an AI mental health model and its human-computer interface among clinicians at a web-based mental health clinic in the Region of Southern Denmark with national coverage. Objective: This study aims to explore clinicians' perspectives on how trust is built in the context of an AI-supported mental health screening model and to identify the factors that influence this process. Methods: This was a qualitative case study using semistructured interviews with clinicians involved in the pilot of a mental health AI model. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors contributing to trust formation. Results: Clinicians' initial attitudes toward AI were shaped by prior positive experiences with AI and their perception of AI's potential to reduce cognitive load in routine screening. Trust development followed a sequential pattern resembling a "trust journey": (1) sense-making, (2) risk appraisal, and (3) conditional decision to rely. Trust formation was supported by the explainability of the model, particularly through (1) visualization of confidence and uncertainty through violin plots, aligning with the clinicians' expectations of decision ambiguity; (2) feature attribution for and against predictions, which mirrored clinical reasoning; and (3) use of pseudo-sumscores in the AI model, which increased interpretability by presenting explanations in familiar clinical formats. Trust was contextually bounded to low-risk clinical scenarios, such as preinterview patient screening, and contingent on safety protocols (eg, suicide risk flagging). The use of both structured and unstructured patient data was seen as key to expanding trust into more complex clinical contexts. Participants also expressed a need for ongoing evaluation data to reinforce and maintain trust. Conclusions: Clinicians' trust in AI tools is contextually and sequentially constructed, influenced by both model performance and alignment with clinical reasoning. Interpretability features were essential in establishing intrinsic trust, particularly when presented in ways that resonate with clinical norms. For broader acceptance and responsible deployment, trust must be supported by rigorous evaluation data and the inclusion of clinically relevant data types in model design.
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.