Jmir Mental Health最新文献

Unlabelled: Knowledge has become more open and accessible to a large audience with the "democratization of information" facilitated by technology. This paper provides a sociohistorical perspective for the theme issue "Responsible Design, Integration, and Use of Generative AI in Mental Health." It evaluates ethical considerations in using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for the democratization of mental health knowledge and practice. It explores the historical context of democratizing information, transitioning from restricted access to widespread availability due to the internet, open-source movements, and most recently, GenAI technologies such as large language models. The paper highlights why GenAI technologies represent a new phase in the democratization movement, offering unparalleled access to highly advanced technology as well as information. In the realm of mental health, this requires delicate and nuanced ethical deliberation. Including GenAI in mental health may allow, among other things, improved accessibility to mental health care, personalized responses, and conceptual flexibility, and could facilitate a flattening of traditional hierarchies between health care providers and patients. At the same time, it also entails significant risks and challenges that must be carefully addressed. To navigate these complexities, the paper proposes a strategic questionnaire for assessing artificial intelligence-based mental health applications. This tool evaluates both the benefits and the risks, emphasizing the need for a balanced and ethical approach to GenAI integration in mental health. The paper calls for a cautious yet positive approach to GenAI in mental health, advocating for the active engagement of mental health professionals in guiding GenAI development. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that GenAI advancements are not only technologically sound but also ethically grounded and patient-centered.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/56650.].

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly recognized as a potential solution to address mental health service challenges by automating tasks and providing new forms of support.

Objective: This study is the first in a series which aims to estimate the current rates of AI technology use as well as perceived benefits, harms, and risks experienced by community members (CMs) and mental health professionals (MHPs).

Methods: This study involved 2 web-based surveys conducted in Australia. The surveys collected data on demographics, technology comfort, attitudes toward AI, specific AI use cases, and experiences of benefits and harms from AI use. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and thematic analysis of open-ended responses were conducted.

Results: The final sample consisted of 107 CMs and 86 MHPs. General attitudes toward AI varied, with CMs reporting neutral and MHPs reporting more positive attitudes. Regarding AI usage, 28% (30/108) of CMs used AI, primarily for quick support (18/30, 60%) and as a personal therapist (14/30, 47%). Among MHPs, 43% (37/86) used AI; mostly for research (24/37, 65%) and report writing (20/37, 54%). While the majority found AI to be generally beneficial (23/30, 77% of CMs and 34/37, 92% of MHPs), specific harms and concerns were experienced by 47% (14/30) of CMs and 51% (19/37) of MHPs. There was an equal mix of positive and negative sentiment toward the future of AI in mental health care in open feedback.

Conclusions: Commercial AI tools are increasingly being used by CMs and MHPs. Respondents believe AI will offer future advantages for mental health care in terms of accessibility, cost reduction, personalization, and work efficiency. However, they were equally concerned about reducing human connection, ethics, privacy and regulation, medical errors, potential for misuse, and data security. Despite the immense potential, integration into mental health systems must be approached with caution, addressing legal and ethical concerns while developing safeguards to mitigate potential harms. Future surveys are planned to track use and acceptability of AI and associated issues over time.

Background: Novel technologies, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and wearable biosensor wristwatches, are increasingly being used to assess outcomes and mechanisms of change in psychological treatments. However, there is still a dearth of information on the feasibility and acceptability of these technologies and whether they can be reliably used to measure variables of interest.

Objective: Our objectives were to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating these technologies into dialectical behavior therapy and conduct a pilot evaluation of whether these technologies can be used to assess emotion regulation processes and associated problems over the course of treatment.

Methods: A total of 20 adults with borderline personality disorder were enrolled in a 6-month course of dialectical behavior therapy. For 1 week out of every treatment month, participants were asked to complete EMA 6 times a day and to wear a biosensor watch. Each EMA assessment included measures of several negative affect and suicidal thinking, among other items. We used multilevel correlations to assess the contemporaneous association between electrodermal activity and 11 negative emotional states reported via EMA. A multilevel regression was conducted in which changes in composite ratings of suicidal thinking were regressed onto changes in negative affect.

Results: On average, participants completed 54.39% (SD 33.1%) of all EMA (range 4.7%-92.4%). They also wore the device for an average of 9.52 (SD 6.47) hours per day and for 92.6% of all days. Importantly, no associations were found between emotional state and electrodermal activity, whether examining a composite of all high-arousal negative emotions or individual emotional states (within-person r ranged from -0.026 to -0.109). Smaller changes in negative affect composite scores were associated with greater suicidal thinking ratings at the subsequent timepoint, beyond the effect of suicidal thinking at the initial timepoint.

Conclusions: Results indicated moderate overall compliance with EMA and wearing the watch; however, there was no concurrence between EMA and wristwatch data on emotions. This pilot study raises questions about the reliability and validity of these technologies incorporated into treatment studies to evaluate emotion regulation mechanisms.

Background: While the number of digital therapeutics (DTx) has proliferated, there is little real-world research on the characteristics of providers recommending DTx, their recommendation behaviors, or the characteristics of patients receiving recommendations in the clinical setting.

Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients receiving DTx recommendations and describe provider characteristics and behaviors regarding DTx.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from a large, integrated health care delivery system. Demographic and clinical characteristics of adult patients recommended versus not recommended DTx by a mental health provider between May 2020 and December 2021 were examined. A cross-sectional survey of mental health providers providing these recommendations was conducted in December 2022 to assess the characteristics of providers and recommendation behaviors related to DTx. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to examine statistical significance between groups.

Results: Of 335,250 patients with a mental health appointment, 53,546 (16%) received a DTx recommendation. Patients recommended to DTx were younger, were of Asian or Hispanic race or ethnicity, were female, were without medical comorbidities, and had commercial insurance compared to those without a DTx recommendation (P<.001). More patients receiving a DTx recommendation had anxiety or adjustment disorder diagnoses, but less had depression, bipolar, or psychotic disorder diagnoses (P<.001) versus matched controls not recommended to DTx. Overall, depression and anxiety symptom scores were lower in patients recommended to DTx compared to matched controls not receiving a recommendation, although female patients had a higher proportion of severe depression and anxiety scores compared to male patients. Provider survey results indicated a higher proportion of nonprescribers recommended DTx to patients compared to prescribers (P=.008). Of all providers, 29.4% (45/153) reported using the suggested internal electronic health record-based tools (eg, smart text) to recommend DTx, and of providers recommending DTx resources to patients, 64.1% (98/153) reported they follow up with patients to inquire on DTx benefits. Only 38.4% (58/151) of respondents report recommending specific DTx modules, and of those, 58.6% (34/58) report following up on the impact of these specific modules.

Conclusions: DTx use in mental health was modest and varied by patient and provider characteristics. Providers do not appear to actively engage with these tools and integrate them into treatment plans. Providers, while expressing interest in potential benefits from DTx, may view DTx as a passive strategy to augment traditional treatment for select patients.

Background: For the provision of optimal care in a suicide prevention helpline, it is important to know what contributes to positive or negative effects on help seekers. Helplines can often be contacted through text-based chat services, which produce large amounts of text data for use in large-scale analysis.

Objective: We trained a machine learning classification model to predict chat outcomes based on the content of the chat conversations in suicide helplines and identified the counsellor utterances that had the most impact on its outputs.

Methods: From August 2021 until January 2023, help seekers (N=6903) scored themselves on factors known to be associated with suicidality (eg, hopelessness, feeling entrapped, will to live) before and after a chat conversation with the suicide prevention helpline in the Netherlands (113 Suicide Prevention). Machine learning text analysis was used to predict help seeker scores on these factors. Using 2 approaches for interpreting machine learning models, we identified text messages from helpers in a chat that contributed the most to the prediction of the model.

Results: According to the machine learning model, helpers' positive affirmations and expressing involvement contributed to improved scores of the help seekers. Use of macros and ending the chat prematurely due to the help seeker being in an unsafe situation had negative effects on help seekers.

Conclusions: This study reveals insights for improving helpline chats, emphasizing the value of an evocative style with questions, positive affirmations, and practical advice. It also underscores the potential of machine learning in helpline chat analysis.

Background: Empathy is a driving force in our connection to others, our mental well-being, and resilience to challenges. With the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, mental health chatbots, and AI social support companions, it is important to understand how empathy unfolds toward stories from human versus AI narrators and how transparency plays a role in user emotions.

Objective: We aim to understand how empathy shifts across human-written versus AI-written stories, and how these findings inform ethical implications and human-centered design of using mental health chatbots as objects of empathy.

Methods: We conducted crowd-sourced studies with 985 participants who each wrote a personal story and then rated empathy toward 2 retrieved stories, where one was written by a language model, and another was written by a human. Our studies varied disclosing whether a story was written by a human or an AI system to see how transparent author information affects empathy toward the narrator. We conducted mixed methods analyses: through statistical tests, we compared user's self-reported state empathy toward the stories across different conditions. In addition, we qualitatively coded open-ended feedback about reactions to the stories to understand how and why transparency affects empathy toward human versus AI storytellers.

Results: We found that participants significantly empathized with human-written over AI-written stories in almost all conditions, regardless of whether they are aware (t₁₉₆=7.07, P<.001, Cohen d=0.60) or not aware (t₂₉₈=3.46, P<.001, Cohen d=0.24) that an AI system wrote the story. We also found that participants reported greater willingness to empathize with AI-written stories when there was transparency about the story author (t₄₉₄=-5.49, P<.001, Cohen d=0.36).

Conclusions: Our work sheds light on how empathy toward AI or human narrators is tied to the way the text is presented, thus informing ethical considerations of empathetic artificial social support or mental health chatbots.