ArticlePloS one2026
Development of a scale for measuring the perception of artificial intelligence among mental health consumers.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force revolutionizing various sectors, including healthcare, particularly the mental health field. However, the acceptance and integration of AI technologies in different healthcare systems can be influenced by various factors, including cultural, social, and individual aspects. Nevertheless, there is a need for a valid and reliable tool for assessing AI's perception among healthcare consumers.
aimTo develop and validate a tool for the perception of AI among healthcare consumers and apply the tool to assess AI's perception among mental health consumers in the Jordanian healthcare system.
methodA cross-sectional descriptive correlational design was utilized in the study. Data was collected from a convenience sample of 431 mental health consumers visiting mental health clinics of the International Medical Corps and university hospitals in Jordan. Structured interviews were conducted using an AI Perception (AIP) questionnaire developed by the authors. The questionnaire's content validity was assessed by an expert panel. Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the construct validity of the tool was evaluated, and its internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's alpha. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the levels of AI perception among participants.
resultsThe final AIP tool consisted of 20 items across 4 domains and has demonstrated strong internal consistency across its four domains: AI acceptance and readiness (α = 0.92), AI perceived importance (α = 0.92), AI perceived risk (α = 0.9), and AI perceived challenges (α = 0.85). The construct validity of the four-domain structure of the tool was supported by PCA. Additionally, the mean scores for each domain indicated the average level of agreement with AI perception items among participants. Specifically, the mean score for AI acceptance and readiness was [Formula: see text]). AI perceived importance was (2.18 [Formula: see text]0.83), AI perceived risk was (2.58[Formula: see text]0.92), and AI perceived challenge was (2.78 [Formula: see text] 0.87).
conclusionThe findings of this study resulted in developing a valid and reliable 20-item tool to assess AI's perception among mental health consumers. The tool can be used to assess the predictors of AI's readiness among mental health consumers. Therefore, aiding policymakers and other stakeholders in understanding the AI adoption barriers from the perspective of end-users. In addition, this study developed the AIP tool that can be validated and used among other populations in future research.
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.