Cited by 114Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Mental Health Interventions

Psychiatrists’ experiences and opinions of generative artificial intelligence in mental healthcare: An online mixed methods survey

Open access
Blease, Charlotte, Worthen, Abigail, Torous, John·2024·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, interest in large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots has surged with increasing focus on the clinical potential of these tools. Missing from this discussion, however, are the perspectives of physicians. The current study aimed to explore psychiatrists' experiences and opinions on this new generation of chatbots in mental health care. An online survey including both quantitative and qualitative responses was distributed to a non-probability sample of psychiatrists affiliated with the American Psychiatric Association. Findings revealed 44 % of psychiatrists had used OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and 33 % had used GPT-4.0 "to assist with answering clinical questions." Administrative tasks were cited as a major benefit of these tools: 70 % somewhat agreed/agreed "documentation will be/is more efficient". Three in four psychiatrists (75 %) somewhat agreed/agreed "the majority of their patients will consult these tools before first seeing a doctor". Nine in ten somewhat agreed/agreed that clinicians need more support/training in understanding these tools. Open-ended responses reflected these opinions but respondents also expressed divergent opinions on the value of generative AI in clinical practice, including its impact on the future of the profession.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115724

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The mental health support potential of LLM-CBs has been noted by both patients and practitioners.

    “The mental health support potential of LLM-CBs has been noted by both patients149,152,153 and practitioners153–155”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. AMA, 2023. ChatGPT and generative AI: what physicians should consider. American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/chatgpt-what-p hysicians-should-consider.pdf (Accessed 11 September 2023).
  2. Press release 9 December 2023, Accessed 11 January 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blease, C., Worthen, A., & Torous, J.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • American Psychiatric Association (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Blease, Charlotte
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
333
Pages
115724
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390749717
Cited by
113
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 19
FWCI
10.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
generative AI, large language models, psychiatrists' perspectives, ChatGPT, GPT-4, mental health services, administrative efficiency, clinical documentation, clinician training, future of psychiatry, physician attitudes
MeSH terms
Psychiatrists, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychiatry, Surveys and Questionnaires

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review