Cited by 5Digital Mental Health InterventionsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The benefits and future potential of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on mental health: a Delphi study

Open access
Oo, Chit Thet Lal, Wider, Walton, Pang, Nicholas Tze Ping, Koh, Eugene Boon Yau, Vasanthi, Rajkumar Krishnan, Thet, Khine Zar Zar, Ramalho, Rodrigo, Özdemir, Bilge Nur +1 more·2026·International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being

Abstract

Purpose This study explores expert consensus on the benefits and future potential of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in mental health care, using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to interpret these perceptions.Methods A two-round Delphi study using a mixed-methods design was conducted with 15 purposively selected experts in psychiatry, clinical psychology, counselling, and digital mental health. Round 1 gathered open-ended responses that were thematically analysed to identify benefit and future-potential dimensions. In Round 2, experts ranked these dimensions, and consensus was assessed using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.Results Twenty-eight themes were identified across eight benefit dimensions, and 29 themes across eight future-potential dimensions. Statistically significant consensus was achieved for both benefits (W = 0.145, p = 0.034) and future potential (W = 0.152, p = 0.025). Accessibility and availability ranked as the most important current benefit, while AI as a collaborative and informative tool was prioritised for future application.Discussion Experts perceived GAI as a transformative adjunct to mental health practice, particularly in expanding access, supporting personalised care, and augmenting professional capacity. Adoption is contingent on usability, transparency, trust, and robust ethical governance to ensure equitable and human-centred integration.

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 · 10.1080/17482631.2026.2621802

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • LLM-CBs' constant availability, non-judgmental attitudes, knowledge of psychotherapeutic concepts, and perceived empathy make them appear attractive as mental health support tools, especially in societies with logistical and resource-based limitations in mental health treatment.

    “LLM-CBs’ constant availability, non-judgmental attitudes, knowledge of psychotherapeutic concepts, and perceived empathy make them appear as attractive mental health support tools149,150, especially in societies marked by logistical and resource-based limitations in mental health treatment151.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [151]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 4

  1. Davis, F. D. (1989). Technology acceptance model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption, 205(219), 5.
  2. Doraiswamy, P. M., Blease, C., & Bodner, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Insights from a global physician survey. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3(1), 46. 10.1038/s41746-020-0222-7 31980092 · DOI
  3. Ko, Y. H., & Leem, C. S. (2021). The influence of AI technology acceptance and ethical awareness towards intention to use. Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(3), 217– 225.
  4. Miner, A. S., Milstein, A., & Hancock, J. T. (2020). Talking to machines about personal mental health problems. JAMA: The journal of the American Medical Association, 324(5), 435– 436. 10.1001/jama.2020.10639 28973225 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oo, C. T. L., Wider, W., Pang, N. T. P., Koh, E. B. Y., Vasanthi, R. K., Thet, K. Z. Z., Ramalho, R., Özdemir, B. N., & Mahboob, K.
Affiliations
  • INTI International University (MY)
  • Universiti of Malaysia Sabah (MY)
  • Universiti Putra Malaysia (MY)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Emergency Medicine Department, Atatürk State Hospital
  • Ayub Medical College (PK)
Corresponding author
Wider, Walton
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being
Published
2026-01-27
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
2621802-2621802
ISSN
  • 1748-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-2631
OpenAlex
W7125814150
Cited by
5
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
29.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Putra Malaysia) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
generative AI, mental health services, expert consensus, technology acceptance model, digital mental health, access to mental health care, individualized care, professional capacity, trust in AI, ethical AI governance, human-centered AI
MeSH terms
Generative Artificial Intelligence, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Delphi Technique, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Psychiatry, Psychology, Clinical, Surveys and Questionnaires, Consensus

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