Describing the Framework for AI Tool Assessment in Mental Health and Applying It to a Generative AI Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Platform: Tutorial.

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR Formative Research Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.2196/62963
Ashleigh Golden, Elias Aboujaoude
{"title":"Describing the Framework for AI Tool Assessment in Mental Health and Applying It to a Generative AI Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Platform: Tutorial.","authors":"Ashleigh Golden, Elias Aboujaoude","doi":"10.2196/62963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies occupy a bigger role in psychiatric and psychological care and become the object of increased research attention, industry investment, and public scrutiny, tools for evaluating their clinical, ethical, and user-centricity standards have become essential. In this paper, we first review the history of rating systems used to evaluate AI mental health interventions. We then describe the recently introduced Framework for AI Tool Assessment in Mental Health (FAITA-Mental Health), whose scoring system allows users to grade AI mental health platforms on key domains, including credibility, user experience, crisis management, user agency, health equity, and transparency. Finally, we demonstrate the use of FAITA-Mental Health scale by systematically applying it to OCD Coach, a generative AI tool readily available on the ChatGPT store and designed to help manage the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The results offer insights into the utility and limitations of FAITA-Mental Health when applied to \"real-world\" generative AI platforms in the mental health space, suggesting that the framework effectively identifies key strengths and gaps in AI-driven mental health tools, particularly in areas such as credibility, user experience, and acute crisis management. The results also highlight the need for stringent standards to guide AI integration into mental health care in a manner that is not only effective but also safe and protective of the users' rights and welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11530715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/62963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies occupy a bigger role in psychiatric and psychological care and become the object of increased research attention, industry investment, and public scrutiny, tools for evaluating their clinical, ethical, and user-centricity standards have become essential. In this paper, we first review the history of rating systems used to evaluate AI mental health interventions. We then describe the recently introduced Framework for AI Tool Assessment in Mental Health (FAITA-Mental Health), whose scoring system allows users to grade AI mental health platforms on key domains, including credibility, user experience, crisis management, user agency, health equity, and transparency. Finally, we demonstrate the use of FAITA-Mental Health scale by systematically applying it to OCD Coach, a generative AI tool readily available on the ChatGPT store and designed to help manage the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The results offer insights into the utility and limitations of FAITA-Mental Health when applied to "real-world" generative AI platforms in the mental health space, suggesting that the framework effectively identifies key strengths and gaps in AI-driven mental health tools, particularly in areas such as credibility, user experience, and acute crisis management. The results also highlight the need for stringent standards to guide AI integration into mental health care in a manner that is not only effective but also safe and protective of the users' rights and welfare.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
描述心理健康人工智能工具评估框架并将其应用于生成式人工智能强迫症平台:教程。
随着人工智能(AI)技术在精神和心理治疗领域发挥越来越大的作用,并成为越来越多研究关注、行业投资和公众监督的对象,评估其临床、伦理和以用户为中心的标准的工具变得至关重要。在本文中,我们首先回顾了用于评估人工智能心理健康干预的评级系统的历史。然后,我们介绍了最近推出的人工智能心理健康工具评估框架(FAITA-Mental Health),该框架的评分系统允许用户在关键领域对人工智能心理健康平台进行评分,包括可信度、用户体验、危机管理、用户代理、健康公平和透明度。最后,我们将 FAITA 心理健康量表系统地应用于 OCD Coach,展示了它的用途。OCD Coach 是一款生成式人工智能工具,可在 ChatGPT 商店中随时下载,旨在帮助控制强迫症症状。当 FAITA-Mental Health 应用于心理健康领域的 "真实世界 "生成式人工智能平台时,其结果为 FAITA-Mental Health 的实用性和局限性提供了见解,表明该框架能有效识别人工智能驱动的心理健康工具的关键优势和不足,尤其是在可信度、用户体验和急性危机管理等方面。研究结果还强调,有必要制定严格的标准,以指导人工智能与心理健康护理的整合,使其不仅有效,而且安全,并能保护用户的权利和福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Feasibility of AgileNudge+ Software to Facilitate Positive Behavioral Change: Mixed Methods Design. A Web-Based Intervention to Support a Growth Mindset and Well-Being in Unemployed Young Adults: Development Study. Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of Virtual Reality for Remote Group-Mediated Physical Activity in Older Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Associations Among Cardiometabolic Risk Factors, Sleep Duration, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea in a Southeastern US Rural Community: Cross-Sectional Analysis From the SLUMBRx-PONS Study. Barriers, Facilitators, and Requirements for a Telerehabilitation Aftercare Program for Patients After Occupational Injuries: Semistructured Interviews With Key Stakeholders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1