ArticleCureus2026
Perceptions and Ethical Concerns Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Healthcare Among the Mental-Health Workforce: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly incorporated into mental healthcare, offering opportunities to improve diagnostic accuracy, service accessibility, and administrative efficiency. However, effective implementation depends on the mental health workforce's awareness, perceptions, and ethical concerns related to AI. Evidence regarding these factors remains limited within diverse practice settings in the United States (US).
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among mental health professionals and trainees practicing in two US states: California and New Jersey. Data were collected using a structured, self-administered online questionnaire adapted from the validated Shinners Artificial Intelligence Perception (SHAIP) scale and expanded to include an ethical concern domain. The survey assessed demographic characteristics, AI awareness, perceptions, ethical concerns, and barriers and facilitators to AI adoption. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, version 26; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics, while inferential analyses, including chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests, were used to examine bivariate differences in AI-related outcomes across participant characteristics, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsA total of 220 mental health professionals and trainees participated, representing psychiatry, psychology, and allied mental health disciplines. Although 63.2% reported formal training in AI, only 39.6% reported using AI-assisted systems in clinical practice. Overall awareness and perceptions of AI were positive, with mean scores ranging from 3.45 to 3.75 across awareness and perception domains. Participants endorsed AI's potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, reduce administrative workload, and improve access to mental health services. Ethical concerns were prominent, particularly regarding potential bias in clinical decision-making (mean = 3.81) and data privacy and security (mean = 3.72). Familiarity with AI concepts, years of clinical experience, and formal AI training were significantly associated with awareness, perception, and ethical-awareness scores (p < 0.05), while age and gender were not.
conclusionMental health workforce demonstrated favorable attitudes toward AI in mental healthcare but reported limited real-world adoption and substantial ethical concerns. These findings underscore the need for targeted education, robust ethical frameworks, and practical training to bridge the gap between AI awareness and responsible clinical implementation.
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.