ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
"Trying to Do No Harm": exploring clinician concerns towards the use of AI for risk prediction in psychiatry.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is expanding, including in psychiatry. However, its successful adoption depends on clinician acceptance and trust. Despite the growing interest, there remains a knowledge gap in understanding the clinician perspectives and concerns, towards AI in psychiatry. Objective: This qualitative, pre-implementation study explored clinician concerns and perceived barriers towards the application of predictive AI for clinical outcomes in a large mental health hospital. Methods and Analysis: Four virtual focus groups were conducted with 16 clinicians who provided care at a large mental health hospital in Ontario, Canada. Two focus groups (n=9) included physicians, and two (n=7) included allied clinicians. Participants discussed their awareness and concerns with predictive AI for clinical outcomes. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Six themes emerged regarding clinician willingness to use and implement AI for clinical outcome prediction in mental healthcare: AI model performance, quality of data sources, system issues, end-user behaviours, patient outcomes and clinician well-being. Subthemes included the absence of technical infrastructure, quality data to support AI development, the 'black box phenomenon' of AI algorithms, loss of critical thinking, medicolegal concerns and the potential harms from over-intervening. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study that uses focus groups to explore a full range of clinician attitudes towards machine learning-based prediction tools in mental healthcare settings. It highlights major areas of concern for emerging AI technology. Understanding clinicians' perspectives is critical to identifying barriers to the introduction of AI in psychiatry.
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.