Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42099931›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026

AI-driven mental health decision support linked to clinician resilience and preparedness.

Margareta-Theodora Mircea, Jessica McFadyen, Ross Harper, Max Rollwage, Tobias U Hauser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Margareta-Theodora Mircea *Limbic Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Jessica McFadyen *Limbic Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Ross HarperLimbic Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Max RollwageLimbic Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Tobias U HauserLimbic Ltd., London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Mental health services are facing unprecedented demand, placing significant pressure on clinicians to conduct timely and effective patient assessments. Rising staff turnover and burnout threatens service quality across many countries. This study examined whether providing clinical information, collected via an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled decision support tool for mental health assessments in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), was associated with differences in clinician wellbeing and patient assessment performance. Method: In this observational study, we surveyed mental health clinicians ( Results: Relative to traditional methods, assessments supported by information provided by the AI tool were associated with significantly higher clinician wellbeing and task performance, and significantly lower cognitive load, irrespective of the clinician's experience. These associations were magnified by workload. Conclusion: These findings provide preliminary evidence that AI-powered pre-assessment tools may be associated with differences in clinician experience including higher wellbeing, higher task performance, and lower cognitive burden. By targeting systemic drivers of burnout, such tools may represent a potentially scalable approach to support workforce sustainability and service quality in mental health care.

Indexed as

AIassessmentburnoutclinician wellbeingdecision supportdigital front doortriage

Identifiers

PMID42099931
PMCPMC13143997

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.