ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Clinician Perceptions of AI in Care: Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
backgroundAI is increasingly being explored as a tool to enhance efficiency, access, and diagnostic accuracy in mental health care. However, the perspectives of clinicians, who are central to the delivery and oversight of care, on the use of AI remain underexamined.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore clinicians' perceptions of AI in clinical care, including perceived benefits, risks, barriers to implementation, and training needs.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed (via email and social media) from August 2024 to November 2024 to mental health professionals in the United States. The survey aimed to capture attitudes toward AI integration, perceived utility, and adoption-related challenges and facilitators in mental health care. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, whereas open-ended responses were analyzed thematically to identify key insights.
resultsRespondents (N=62) were mostly (43/62, 69.4%) not currently using AI in practice. The most frequently endorsed benefits included reduction in time spent in coding and billing (32/60, 53.3%), automated intake (23/61, 37.7%), and improved documentation (23/61, 37.7%) by mental health professionals. However, most expressed discomfort with using AI in patient care, and concerns were raised about inaccurate outputs (47/61, 77%), algorithmic bias (41/61, 67.2%), reduced accessibility (31/61, 50.8%), and job stability (22/61, 36.1%). Barriers to adoption included clinician resistance (46/61, 75.4%), lack of validation (41/61, 67.2%), and challenges with technical integration (26/61, 42.6%). Most respondents (54/61, 88.5%) believed that specialized training in AI ethics and applications was moderately, very, or extremely important for clinicians. Open-ended responses reinforced concerns about dehumanization, cultural insensitivity, ethical accountability, and insufficient technological literacy.
conclusionsMental health professionals in this sample viewed AI as a potentially useful adjunct to care but not a replacement. Ethical concerns, limited trust, and a strong emphasis on the human dimensions of therapy suggest that implementation must proceed with caution. Clinician-informed strategies, ethical frameworks, and targeted training are essential to support the responsible and effective integration of AI into mental health practice.
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.