The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Psychiatrists’ experiences and opinions of generative artificial intelligence in mental healthcare: An online mixed methods survey
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The mental health support potential of LLM-CBs has been noted by both patients149,152,153 and practitioners153–155”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [154]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ayers, J. W., Poliak, A., Dredze, M., Leas, E. C., Zhu, Z., Kelley, J. B., Faix, D. J., Goodman, A. M., Longhurst, C. A., Hogarth, M., et al. (2023) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838 · Cited by 2,613
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review
FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8 · Cited by 2,556
Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures
Mayring, P. (2014) · Advances in mathematics education · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13 · Cited by 2,349
F.Marks, D., & Yardley, L. (2004) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849209793.n4 · Cited by 1,126
Takeshita, J., Wang, S., Loren, A. W., Mitra, N., Shults, J., Shin, D. B., & Sawinski, D. L. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24583 · Cited by 697 · cited 1×
“It is worth emphasizing that physicians also exhibit unwanted prejudicial biases in clinical practice, and whether algorithmic biases are worse than what already exists in human mediated care is unknown (FitzGerald and Hurst, 2017; Takeshita et al., 2020).”
Sharma, A., Lin, I. W., Miner, A. S., Atkins, D. C., & Althoff, T. (2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00593-2 · Cited by 500
Accuracy of a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model in a Complex Diagnostic Challenge
Kanjee, Z., Crowe, B., & Rodman, A. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.8288 · Cited by 449
Walker, H. L., Ghani, S., Kuemmerli, C., Nebiker, C. A., Müller, B. P., Raptis, D. A., & Staubli, S. M. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/47479 · Cited by 363
AI-Generated Medical Advice—GPT and Beyond
Haupt, C. E., & Marks, M. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.5321 · Cited by 346
AI Chatbots, Health Privacy, and Challenges to HIPAA Compliance
Marks, M., & Haupt, C. E. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.9458 · Cited by 174
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- AMA, 2023. ChatGPT and generative AI: what physicians should consider. American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/chatgpt-what-physicians-should-consider.pdf (Accessed 11 September 2023).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–114 of 114
The use of AI scribes across medical fields and why psychiatry is lagging behind: A scoping review
Daignault, C., Audelin-Rinfret, J., Désilets, M., Bahremand, A., & Do, A. (2026) · Santé mentale au Québec · doi:10.7202/1126800ar
Saad, M., Irawan, A. W., & Putri, A. A. P. (2026) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2026.105090
Wang, J., Yang, J., & Guo, R. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/89963
Use of large language models by academic hospitalists: results of a multicenter survey (Preprint)Preprint
Bressman, E., Auerbach, A. D., Keniston, A., Jens, C., & Ranji, S. R. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.110164
Kahlon, A., Wallace, L. L., Walker, T., Sivakumar, S., Brara, B., & Bawden, D. G. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.115382
AI Tools for Emotional Support: An Initial Survey of Age-Related Differences in Perceptions and Use
Wang, J., Nguyen, T., Marion, J., Yih, Y., & Pitts, B. J. (2026) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813261485997
Marin, M., Montañez, M., & Vaillancourt, K. T. (2026) · Journal of Marital and Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.70172
Blease, C., Hagström, J., Gaab, J., Carey, A., Cipriani, F., Gorman, C., Nascimento, A. F., Fitzgerald, A., Holtz, L., Schwarz, J., et al. (2026) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/105052
Self-citationEthical decision-making by psychologists in situations of professional and corporate uncertainty
Миколаївна, М. А. (2026) · Academic Visions · doi:10.66556/2786-586x.56.moskalenko-a
KI in der Psychotherapie: Ersatz, Werkzeug oder Projektionsfläche?
Raile, P. (2026) · Psychotherapie-Wissenschaft · doi:10.30820/1664-9583-2026-2-7
Friedrich, P., Obremski, D., Latoschik, M. E., & Wienrich, C. (2026) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/3776574.3831112
Łapot, M., Hober, K., Krupnik, D., Skowron, W., Skowron, M., Bzdak, W., Szwemińska, P., Górak, J., & Neumann, W. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science · doi:10.31435/ijitss.3(51).2026.6235
Pye, S., Hazell, C. M., Smith, K. J., & Bergin, A. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16101827
Zhang, D.-S., Zhou, L.-N., Wang, Z.-H., Zhang, E., & Pan, Y.-C. (2026) · Engineering Management · doi:10.1007/s42524-026-6108-0
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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
