ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
AI-based early mental health screening for local public officials.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Local public officials are consistently exposed to high levels of occupational stress and burnout due to heavy workloads, citizen interactions, and rigid organizational cultures. Conventional self-report assessments are limited by subjectivity and stigma, whereas artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening systems offer potential advantages for earlier engagement and improved accessibility, particularly in stigma-sensitive contexts. This study evaluated the acceptability and perceived usefulness of an AI-based mental health screening system for local officials. Methods: A two-stage survey was conducted with 126 officials in local public. Stage one employed standardized instruments (PHQ-9, GAD-7, job stress, stigma perception). Stage two included 30 randomly selected participants who completed both self-report and GPT-based AI assessments, followed by evaluation of satisfaction and acceptance. Analyses included descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Chi-square tests, reliability (Cronbach's Results: Respondents reported high job stress, with younger officials showing greater vulnerability. Despite only 3.2% having prior AI diagnostic experience, 73.8% trusted AI results more than self-reports, and 84.9% expressed willingness for regular participation. Stigma toward conventional services remained prevalent, yet 81.7% agreed AI could mitigate stigma. In the in-depth survey, AI screening was rated highly for usability, efficiency, interpretability, and re-engagement intention, although some concerns regarding transparency and interpretability remained. Therefore, the AI model in this study should not be interpreted as providing clinical diagnoses. Its outputs reflect pattern recognition within conversational data, and further validation against clinician-administered psychiatric assessments is required. Regression analysis showed that trust in AI results ( Conclusion: AI-based screening demonstrates strong potential as a perceived potential and stigma-free tool for public officials. To ensure sustainable implementation, institutional safeguards and algorithm refinement are required.
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.