Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41417472›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2025

Investigating How Clinicians Form Trust in an AI-Based Mental Health Model: Qualitative Case Study.

Anthony Kelly, Niharika Bhardwaj, Trine Theresa Holmberg Sainte-Marie, Pepijn Van de Ven, Ruth Melia, John Eustis Williams, Kim Mathiasen, Amalie Søgaard Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Anthony KellyDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Casteltroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland, 353 61 202700.ORCID 0000-0003-1798-1506
Niharika BhardwajDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Casteltroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland, 353 61 202700.ORCID 0009-0008-8297-1885
Trine Theresa Holmberg Sainte-MarieDepartment of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8379-0906
Pepijn Van de VenDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Casteltroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland, 353 61 202700.ORCID 0000-0003-3321-450X
Ruth MeliaHealth Research Institute, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-1152-5510
John Eustis WilliamsCenter for Digital Psykiatri, Forskningsenhed, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0005-0772-0400
Kim MathiasenDepartment of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6067-8866
Amalie Søgaard NielsenResearch Unit of Digital Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2884-3902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelMental Health ServicesTrustAdultDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchAIartificial intelligencedecision support systemexplainable AIintrinsic trustmachine learningmental healthMLtrustXAI

Identifiers

PMID41417472
PMCPMC12716233

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.