ArticleDer Nervenarzt2026
[Artificial intelligence in sychotherapy-Attitudes and competencies of medical and psychological psychotherapists].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the perceived Artificial Intelligence Literacy Questionnaire-6 (PAILQ-6) in Arabic-speaking pharmacists: A cross-sectional methodological study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming established in medicine, such as therapeutic chatbots in mental health. Despite this, knowledge about clinicians' views and skills is lacking. This study examines the attitudes toward AI and competencies of German physicians (ÄPT), psychotherapists (PPT) and psychotherapists in training (PiA) for the first time.
methodCross-sectional study with online survey (June-July 2025) of 335 participants, recruited through professional associations and chambers. Attitudes were assessed using the AIAS‑4 scale, competencies using the MAILS scale. Statistical analysis using ANCOVA with age as covariate (Bonferroni-corrected).
resultsAll professional groups showed moderate AI literacy (M = 4.9-5.9/11), e.g. recognizing and evaluating the use of AI and moderately positive attitudes toward AI (AIAS-Total; M = 5.6-6.3/10). After controlling for age (ANCOVA), professional group effects emerged only for attitudes (p = 0.012), with physicians showing more positive attitudes than both psychologist groups (d = 0.40-0.49) but not for AI literacy (p = 0.267). There was a strong generational effect: younger participants demonstrated higher AI literacy (r = -0.28) and more positive attitudes (items 1-3: r = -0.12 to -0.17). Development competency for AI was almost nonexistent.
conclusionThe competence of reflective use of AI appears primarily generation-dependent, not profession-specific. Age-adapted, cross-professional training programs are necessary to systematically integrate reflective competencies in education and continuing professional development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41661282What 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.