Human Touch vs. Tech Talk: Mental Health Clinicians' Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Systemic Practice.

Merranda Marin, Marcel Montanez, Kourtney Vaillancourt

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of marital and family therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Merranda MarinDepartment of Family and Consumer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, United States, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0918-9041

Marcel MontanezDepartment of Family and Consumer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, United States, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6274-138X

Kourtney VaillancourtDepartment of Family and Consumer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, United States, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5960-5763

Funding

New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture through the Hatch Act 7006697

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) based tools increasingly enter mental health care, clinicians face new possibilities alongside significant ethical, relational, and professional concerns. Yet limited empirical research has examined clinicians' perspectives on AI within systemic practice. This convergent mixed-methods study examined familiarity, use, perceived benefits and risks, ethical and relational concerns, and training needs among 89 practicing mental health professionals in the United States. Approximately half of respondents reported using AI professionally, with notetaking and transcription representing the most frequently reported applications. Findings reflect conditional acceptance of AI with greater perceived value for clinician support and greater concern when AI might compromise professional judgment, confidentiality, contextual understanding, or human connection. Findings also underscore the need for ethically grounded, relationally informed, and systematically responsive AI integration.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedartificial intelligence (AI)clinical practicecouplemarriage and family therapysystemic practicetherapeutic alliance

Identifiers

PMID42726521

DOI10.1111/jmft.70172

PMCPMC13566612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.